Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Paras Nath Prasad vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 15 September, 1989
The aforementioned view has also been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Paras Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in 1990 (2) PLJR 248.
State Of Mysore vs C. R. Seshadri & Ors on 10 January, 1974
In the State of Mysore v. C.R. Seshadri , the Supreme Court has given its verdict to the effect that when a person is found to have been denied his due promotion, the Court may hold that he had been entitled to such promotion with retrospective effect and, accordingly issue direction to the Government to make the payment of arrears of pay etc. In the words of the Supreme Court "there is no dearth of authority to hold that once an order of the Government is found to be void or unsustainable in law and is quashed, the relief which may be a monetary relief and which flows from such setting aside of the order, has to be allowed to the order, successful petitioner."
Syrya Narain Yadav & Ors vs Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors on 8 May, 1985
In Surya Narain Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Board once again the Supreme Court has reiterated the law stated in Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies that" under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the premise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the Judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement arisen" and extended the rule of promissory estoppel in favour of the employees stating that the Board by permanently absorbing ex-cadre doctors cannot deny them the consequence thereof which is complete violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly granted relief of absorption with effect from the due date but declined to make any direction which would prejudice such person who had been recruited and absorbed in service of the Board behind heir back without affording the Board an opportunity of hearing them.
Union Of India & Ors vs M/S. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd on 22 November, 1967
In Surya Narain Yadav v. Bihar State Electricity Board once again the Supreme Court has reiterated the law stated in Union of India v. Indo Afghan Agencies that" under our jurisprudence the Government is not exempt from liability to carry out the representation made by it as to its future conduct and it cannot on some undefined and undisclosed ground of necessity or expediency fail to carry out the premise solemnly made by it, nor claim to be the Judge of its own obligation to the citizen on an ex parte appraisement arisen" and extended the rule of promissory estoppel in favour of the employees stating that the Board by permanently absorbing ex-cadre doctors cannot deny them the consequence thereof which is complete violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and accordingly granted relief of absorption with effect from the due date but declined to make any direction which would prejudice such person who had been recruited and absorbed in service of the Board behind heir back without affording the Board an opportunity of hearing them.
1