Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.35 seconds)
Ram Dayal Yadav vs D/O Post on 30 June, 2021 cites

Praveen Jain And Ors., B.R. Arora And ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2002

9. In view of the fact that the controversy involved in the instant OA is fully covered and has been decided in the above cited judgment, the instant OA deserves to be decided in same terms. Accordingly, it is disposed of finally at the admission stage with direction to the respondents to ensure that the benefit of the judgment passed by this Tribunal on 26.02.2020 in OA No. 146/2020- Pravesh Chandra Gupta and others V. Union of India others be also given to the applicants of the instant OA, if they are found otherwise entitled for the same as per merits of their individual case. This exercise is to be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Delhi High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 53 - S B Sinha - Full Document

N.Ayyamperumal vs Union Of India on 13 July, 2017

In wake of the law laid down in above cited judgments/orders, it cannot be said that the judgment passed by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the matter of K. Ayyamperumal (supra) is a judgment in personam and not a judgment in rem. Moreover, all the matters relating to pay fixation, like present one under consideration, are governed by uniform policy of the Government and therefore, any judgment in these matters are always judgment in rem and cannot be interpreted as judgment in personam.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 109 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

K.I. Shephard & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India & Ors on 18 September, 1987

In this regard, reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in K.I. Shephard & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors, (1987) 4 SCC 431, in which Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that merely because some of the employees did not come to the court would not provide any justification to penalise them for not having litigated and they are also entitled to the same benefits as persons who have already succeeded.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 482 - M Rangnath - Full Document

M.Balasubramani vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 21 August, 2019

With regard to contention of the respondents that to earn an increment an employee must remain in service on the date of increment and the applicants being retired on 30th June, they are not entitled for that, Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) in the aforesaid judgment while placing reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court dated 03.08.2011 passed in M. Balasubramanim v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (writ petition No.8440 of 2011), has held that "there is no rule which stipulates that an employee must Page No. 13 continue in service for being extended the benefits of the service already rendered by him."
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 33 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document
1   2 Next