Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.27 seconds)

Union Of India vs Harnam Singh on 9 February, 1993

The learned Chief Justice speaking for the Court has come to hold that as there was discrimination in view of the law laid down in the case of Harnam Singh (supra) the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal was susceptible and required to be interfered with. In my considered opinion the factual matrix of the aforesaid case is quite different from the present one. In the case at hand, the Board has its own guidelines and the petitioner has approached the Board after three and a half decades. The enormous delay clearly establishes that the fault on the part of the petitioner is colossus. It is well settled in law that a litigant who is not vigilant, is not entitled to any relief.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 448 - L M Sharma - Full Document

S.C. Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 10 August, 2000

8. The next submission of Mr. Jain is that the petitioner after coming to know about the error made a representation to the Board in quite promptitude and there is no delay and therefore, he cannot be deprived of the benefit on the ground of delay and laches. Learned counsel has drawn the inspiration from the decision rendered in the case of S.C. Verma (supra). In the aforesaid case the Division Bench has dealt with the correction of date of birth relating to a Central Government employee and has interpreted the provisions under Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - A K Mishra - Full Document
1