Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)
Munshi Ram vs Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. And ... on 7 September, 2011 cites

State Of Karnataka & Ors vs C. Lalitha on 31 January, 2006

It is, therefore, not disputed that case of Behari Parshad is fully applicable to the case of the petitioner in terms of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of State of Karnataka and others v. C. Lalitha reported as 2006(2) RSJ page 19 as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Jugal Kishore v. State of Haryana and others reported as 2009(3) SCT page 433.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 544 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Karam Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 November, 2010

The petitioner superannuated as a Class IV employee on 31.12.1989 as work-charged employee. He was not granted the pensionary benefits on the ground that he was not considered to be a regular employee. In similar and identical circumstances one Shri Behari Parshad son of Shri Rameshwar Parshad, who retired as Assistant Foreman alongwith the petitioner as work charge was also not granted the benefit of the instructions dated 8.2.1988 and denied the pensionary benefits like him. He filed Civil Writ Petition No.18896 C.W.P No.9440 of 2010 -2- of 2001. The said writ petition was allowed on 20.12.2007 in terms of the decision dated 19.7.2007 rendered in CWP No.5136 of 1992 titled as "Karam Singh v. State of Haryana and others".
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - R C Gupta - Full Document
1