Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Shri Rimbarco M Marak vs State Of Meghalaya on 15 December, 2016 cites

State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr vs Kaushal Kishore Shukla on 11 January, 1991

22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has not right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of 'RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA vs U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION' AIR 1987 SC 2408; 'TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' AIR 1992 SC 496; 'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, LUCKNOW, U.P AND ANOTHER vs PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER, (1994) 5 SCC 177; 'RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI vs U.P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 180 and 'MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS' (1995) 1 SCC 638 and 'KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 357 - K N Singh - Full Document

Ravindra Kumar Misra vs U.P. State Handloom Corporation Ltd. & ... on 15 October, 1987

22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has not right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of 'RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA vs U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION' AIR 1987 SC 2408; 'TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' AIR 1992 SC 496; 'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, LUCKNOW, U.P AND ANOTHER vs PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER, (1994) 5 SCC 177; 'RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI vs U.P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 180 and 'MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS' (1995) 1 SCC 638 and 'KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 98 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991

22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has not right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of 'RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA vs U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION' AIR 1987 SC 2408; 'TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' AIR 1992 SC 496; 'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, LUCKNOW, U.P AND ANOTHER vs PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER, (1994) 5 SCC 177; 'RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI vs U.P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 180 and 'MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS' (1995) 1 SCC 638 and 'KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 151 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Ram Chandra Tripathi vs U.P. Public Services Tribunal Iv And ... on 25 February, 1994

22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has not right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of 'RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA vs U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION' AIR 1987 SC 2408; 'TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' AIR 1992 SC 496; 'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, LUCKNOW, U.P AND ANOTHER vs PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER, (1994) 5 SCC 177; 'RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI vs U.P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 180 and 'MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS' (1995) 1 SCC 638 and 'KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 45 - G N Ray - Full Document

Madhya Pradesh Hasta Shilpa Vikas Nigam ... vs Devendra Kumar Jain & Ors on 7 December, 1994

22. It is a settled law that a temporary employee has not right to hold the post as his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason either in terms of the contract providing for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary servants. A similar question came up for consideration in the case of 'RAVINDRA KUMAR MISRA vs U.P. STATE HANDLOOM CORPORATION' AIR 1987 SC 2408; 'TRIVENI SHANKAR SAXENA vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS' AIR 1992 SC 496; 'COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES, LUCKNOW, U.P AND ANOTHER vs PRAKASH CHANDRA SAXENA AND ANOTHER, (1994) 5 SCC 177; 'RAM CHANDRA TRIPATHI vs U.P PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL IV AND OTHERS, (1994) 5 SCC 180 and 'MADHYA PRADESH HASTA SHILPA VIKAS NIGAM LTD vs WP(C) No. 35 of 2015 Page 6 of 7 DEVENDRA KUMAR JAIN AND OTHERS' (1995) 1 SCC 638 and 'KAUSHAL KISHORE SHUKLA' (supra) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that incumbent to a post who has been given appointment on temporary basis, terminable without notice has no right to hold the post and he is not entitled for any opportunity of hearing before his services are dispensed with as his termination does not amount to forfeiture of any legal right.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 68 - S C Agrawal - Full Document
1