Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Dinesh Kumar V Vaghela And Others vs Western Railway on 6 April, 2026 cites

Union Of India vs Pushpa Rani & Ors on 29 July, 2008

In Pushpa Rani (supra), the policy dated 19.10.2003 pertained to restructuring by merging Group „C‟ and Group „D‟ posts to create a new cadre, thereby involving a change in cadre structure. The policy itself clarified that such instructions would not apply in cases where there is no change in duties or designation. In the present case, there is no change in cadre, duties, or designation. The exercise undertaken is purely for financial upgradation to address stagnation. Hence, the said judgment does not support the case of the respondents.
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 263 - G S Singhvi - Full Document

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd vs R. Santhakumar Velusamy & Ors on 6 September, 2011

(supra) a 3-Judges Bench while considering the issue whether the benefits accuring to the appellants therein as a consequence of the reorganization scheme of wireless and communication system could be said to given them the benefit of a promotion and whether they were still entitled to a financial upgradation on account of ACP Scheme, had considered and relied upon the judgment passed in cases of Pushpa Rani (supra) and BSNL Vs.R. Santhakumari (supra) and by recording the finding that the consequence of reorganization of the cadre resulted in not only a mere re-description of the post but also much higher pay scale being granted to the appellants based on an element of selection criteria. Since there is a requirement of minimum five years service, thus, all Telephone Operators would not automatically eligible for the new posts. Further, the financial emoluments are much higher and the said Telephone Operators can be said to be eligible for such new post and higher pay scale on completion of training. All these cannot be stated to be only an exercise of merely re-description or re-organization of the cadre.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 75 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Union Of India And Anr vs S.S. Ranade on 25 April, 1995

15) ―15. The contention of Shri Gopal Subramanium for the general candidates that appointment from senior scale to selection scale is not a promotion and that Fateh Chand Soni [(1996) 1 SCC 562 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 340] requires reconsideration in view of the judgments in Union of India v. S.S. Ranade [(1995) 4 SCC 462 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1033 : (1995) 30 ATC 559] and Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India [(1973) 3 SCC 862 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 73 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Lalit Mohan Deb & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 8 February, 1972

15) ―15. The contention of Shri Gopal Subramanium for the general candidates that appointment from senior scale to selection scale is not a promotion and that Fateh Chand Soni [(1996) 1 SCC 562 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 340] requires reconsideration in view of the judgments in Union of India v. S.S. Ranade [(1995) 4 SCC 462 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1033 : (1995) 30 ATC 559] and Lalit Mohan Deb v. Union of India [(1973) 3 SCC 862 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 112 - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan vs Fateh Chand Soni on 12 December, 1995

In Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay [(1999) 7 SCC 251 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1275] it was submitted that the view taken in Fateh Chand Soni case [(1996) 1 SCC 562 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 340] requires reconsideration because the same is inconsistent with the latter judgments in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239] and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.07 MEHTA 15:01:01+05'30' 36 [O.A. NO. 134/2023 & Connected OAs] 1239] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 94 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Ram Prasad Etc.Etc vs D.K.Vijay And Ors.Etc.Etc on 16 September, 1999

In Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay [(1999) 7 SCC 251 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1275] it was submitted that the view taken in Fateh Chand Soni case [(1996) 1 SCC 562 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 340] requires reconsideration because the same is inconsistent with the latter judgments in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239] and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.07 MEHTA 15:01:01+05'30' 36 [O.A. NO. 134/2023 & Connected OAs] 1239] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 32 - M J Rao - Full Document

Ajit Singh Januja & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 1 March, 1996

In Ram Prasad v. D.K. Vijay [(1999) 7 SCC 251 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1275] it was submitted that the view taken in Fateh Chand Soni case [(1996) 1 SCC 562 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 340] requires reconsideration because the same is inconsistent with the latter judgments in Ajit Singh Januja v. State of Punjab [(1996) 2 SCC 715 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 540 : (1996) 33 ATC 239] and Ajit Singh (II) v. State of Punjab [(1999) 7 SCC 209 : 1999 SCC (L&S) JITENDRA RAJ 2026.04.07 MEHTA 15:01:01+05'30' 36 [O.A. NO. 134/2023 & Connected OAs] 1239] .
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 186 - N P Singh - Full Document
1   2 Next