Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.23 seconds)

Ishwar Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 July, 1995

In support of his argument, he relies upon the judgments rendered in Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (2) RSJ 370; Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (1) RSJ 241; Jaswinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others 2016 (4) RSJ 207; Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2020 (3) SCT 50;Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2021 (2) PLR 485and Const.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 196 - R P Sethi - Full Document

Raghbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 January, 2021

In support of his argument, he relies upon the judgments rendered in Sucha Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (2) RSJ 370; Piara Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2014 (1) RSJ 241; Jaswinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others 2016 (4) RSJ 207; Ishwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others 2020 (3) SCT 50;Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others 2021 (2) PLR 485and Const.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - H S Sethi - Full Document

Sukhchain Singh @ Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2015

7. A reading of the said rule would make it clear that the authority competent to order re-instatement shall consider and make a specific order regarding 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 20-04-2022 04:30:54 ::: CWP No.6336 of 2016(O&M) -5- a government employee, who has been dismissed, removed, compulsorily retired or suspended, and shall consider whether the employee will be entitled to pay and allowances for the period of his absence from duty including the period of suspension, preceding his dismissal, removal or compulsorily retired, as the case may be. It is also an admitted fact that no departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner herein was dismissed from service on the basis of FIR that was registered against him under Sections 326, 324, 34 IPC and therefore, would be entitled to pay and allowances for the period he remained out of service. The judgments as relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in Const. Sukhchain Singh's case (supra) would be fully applicable to the present case where in similar circumstances, the petitioner, who had been dismissed from service on account of criminal charges and subsequently acquitted, was held to be entitled for full pay and allowances by virtue of Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Civil Services Vol. 1 Part 1.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 12 - J Chauhan - Full Document

Ex-Constable Kulwant Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 September, 2008

The said judgment in Sukhchan Singh's case also took note of the judgment rendered by this Court in General Manager Operation Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Narnaul and others Vs. Mathura Dass Gupta passed in LPA No.1580 of 2011 on 10.02.2012 wherein the Division Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to be treated the period for which he was forced to remain out of service as duty period and the judgment rendered in Ex. Constable Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others passed in CWP No.12000 of 2007 decided on 4.8.2008 where in similar circumstances, the petitioner therein had been held to be entitled for pay and allowances consequently by treating the period from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement in service as duty period.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 15 - R Bhalla - Full Document

Sucha Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2003

The said judgment in Sukhchan Singh's case also took note of the judgment rendered by this Court in General Manager Operation Circle, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Narnaul and others Vs. Mathura Dass Gupta passed in LPA No.1580 of 2011 on 10.02.2012 wherein the Division Bench held that the petitioner was entitled to be treated the period for which he was forced to remain out of service as duty period and the judgment rendered in Ex. Constable Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others passed in CWP No.12000 of 2007 decided on 4.8.2008 where in similar circumstances, the petitioner therein had been held to be entitled for pay and allowances consequently by treating the period from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement in service as duty period.
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 430 - A Pasayat - Full Document
1   2 Next