Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.26 seconds)Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar & Another ... vs Union Of India & Another Etc. Etc on 3 March, 1982
The decision of this
Court in Dinesh Kumar (supra) also found
mention in the judgment in Rohitash Kumar
(supra) and was not disturbed.
R P Sanwal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 27 November, 2018
41. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the respondents that
there is a delay in filing of the present petitions, we are of the opinion
that the same has been adequately explained by the petitioners. The
petitioners should have been accorded the benefit of the Judgment of
this Court in R.P. Sanwal (supra).
Manjit Singh Sawhney vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 May, 2005
17. Aggrieved by the Order dated 27.01.2016, many officers
assailed it by means of various petitions, including WP(C) 2671/2016
titled R.P. Sanwal vs Union of India &Ors, WP(C) NO. 2668/2016
titled Prakhar Trivedi vs Union of India & Ors, WP(C) No. 743/2015
titled Manjit Singh vs Union of India & Ors. This Court, vide its
common Judgment dated 27.11.2018, decided these petitions in favor
of the petitioners. Consequently, in compliance with the said
Judgment, the Order dated 27.01.2016 was rescinded by the
respondents through subsequent Orders.
Manjit Singh Bali vs Union Of India on 16 October, 2017
22. He submits that this Court in a Writ Petition bearing No.
W.P(C) 743 of 2015 titled Manjit Singh v. Union of India, who was
selected pursuant to the same examination, that is, SSB (CPO) 1991,
but had joined his training with the 18th batch as he was declared
medically 'unfit' by Medical Board, and a batch of other petitions,
vide Judgment dated 27.11.2018, distinguished the Judgment of the
Supreme Court in Rohitash Kumar (supra), and directed for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
W.P.(C) 7007/2020 & W.P.(C) 8005/2020 Page 7 of 21
Signing Date:19.03.2025
17:10:56
restoration of his seniority as it was before the issuance of the Order
dated 27.01.2016, that is, as had been fixed by the respondents
initially.
Naresh Kumar & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2004
39. This Court again in the Naresh Kumar (supra), reiterated its
earlier view in R P Sanwal (supra), and relying upon Naveen Kumar
Jha (supra), Avinash Singh (supra) and Anjan Kumar Mandal v.
Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12028, held that
where the appointment/joining was delayed due to the failure on part
of the respondents, the petitioners were justified in claiming seniority
at par with the candidates selected in the same selection process.
Avinash Chandra Bhateja & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors. on 4 October, 2013
39. This Court again in the Naresh Kumar (supra), reiterated its
earlier view in R P Sanwal (supra), and relying upon Naveen Kumar
Jha (supra), Avinash Singh (supra) and Anjan Kumar Mandal v.
Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12028, held that
where the appointment/joining was delayed due to the failure on part
of the respondents, the petitioners were justified in claiming seniority
at par with the candidates selected in the same selection process.
Naveen Kumar Jha vs Union Of India And Ors on 2 November, 2012
39. This Court again in the Naresh Kumar (supra), reiterated its
earlier view in R P Sanwal (supra), and relying upon Naveen Kumar
Jha (supra), Avinash Singh (supra) and Anjan Kumar Mandal v.
Union of India & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12028, held that
where the appointment/joining was delayed due to the failure on part
of the respondents, the petitioners were justified in claiming seniority
at par with the candidates selected in the same selection process.
Rahul Rana vs Delhi Metro Rail Corporation on 15 October, 2019
32. The learned counsel further contended that granting of such a
relief to the petitioners at this stage will affect the right of the other
personnels. He places reliance on Rahul Sharma v. Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 2345, wherein this court
has held that, it is settled law that fence-sitters cannot be allowed to
raise the dispute or challenge the validity of the order after its
conclusion.
B.S. Bajwa & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 11 December, 1997
The learned counsel also relied on the decision in B.S.
Bajwa & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1998) 2 SCC 523, and
submitted that in service matters, the question of seniority should not
be re-opened after the lapse of a reasonable period because that results
in disturbing the settled position, which is not justifiable.