Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.29 seconds)Section 82 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Section 38 in The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 [Entire Act]
Osmania University vs V. S. Muthurangam And Ors on 8 July, 1997
35. This decision was affirmed in Osmania University (2 supra)
by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the University
will be justified within the ambit of Section 38 (1) to introduce
different conditions of service for different categories of employees if
such different conditions become necessary for the exigency of
administration and if it is otherwise impracticable to bring uniformity
in the conditions of service of different categories of employees. For
the same reason, it is permissible for the University to introduce the
age of superannuation differently for different categories of
employees, if introduction of such different age of superannuation can
be justified on the anvil of felt need of the administration. But if
::20:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_37396_2017 &
wp_18559_2020
Uniform conditions of service for teaching and non-teaching staff of
the University is not otherwise impracticable, the University is under
an obligation to maintain such uniformity because of the mandate of
Section 38(1) of the Act. It held that in the said case it did not find
that it is not at all practicable for the University to maintain the
clarity in the age of superannuation of both teaching and non-
teaching staff.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bank Of India vs Jagjit Singh Mehta on 22 November, 1991
45. The Special G.P. for the State of A.P. however relied on the
decision of the Supreme Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit Singh
::24:: MSR,J & TA,J
wp_37396_2017 &
wp_18559_2020
Mehta7 wherein transfer policy of an Officer in the said Bank came
up for consideration and it was observed that ordinarily and as far as
practicable, a husband and wife who are both employed should be
posted at the same station even if their employers be different, but it
was stated that it would not mean that their place of posting should
invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be
taken into account, while making the decision in accordance with the
administrative needs. This decision is distinguishable because it dealt
with a case of transfer and not a situation of allocation to a particular
State post-bifurcation of a Composite State into two States.
Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs The International Airport Authority Of ... on 4 May, 1979
Also, as held in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International
Airport Authority9, it would be violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution if the respondents are allowed to ignore / misinterpret the
very guidelines for allocation framed by the Government of India and
cause hardship to vulnerable categories of employees like the
petitioners.
Dr.S.Shoba Rani vs The State Reorganization Department ... on 27 February, 2017
In Dr. S. Shoba Rani (3 supra), a Division Bench of this Court
interpreted Clause 18(l) as under :
Uzma Nikhath vs The Government Of India Rep.By Its Under ... on 28 January, 2019
They contend that in Dr. S. Shobha Rani v. State
Reorganization Department3 and Uzma-Nikhath v. Government
of India4 and P.Rajyalakshmi v. Union of India5 it was held that the
basic principle underlying the guidelines framed by the Government
of India for allocation of staff between the two States is to keep
employed spouses together who would otherwise be separated owing
to the allocation undertaken pursuant to the bifurcation of the
erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh; keeping the spirit and intent
underlying this principle, the Guidelines should be implemented; and
that the import and intent of bifurcation of the erstwhile State of
Andhra Pradesh is not to breakup marriages.
P. Damodhar vs The Telangana State Industrial ... on 27 April, 2020
39. The above principle was applied in P. Damodhar vs. T.S.
Industrial Development Corporation6, and it was held that the basic
principle underlying the guidelines framed by the Government of
India is to protect and keep together employed spouses who would
otherwise be separated owing to the allocation undertaken pursuant to
the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh.