Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)The States Reorganisation Act, 1956
Union Of India & Anr vs P.K. Roy & Ors on 9 November, 1967
This Court, after noting the conflict of opinion on the point among the High Courts in Union of India and Ors. v. P.K. Roy and Ors. left open the question. We do not think that on the facts of this case it is necessary to resolve the conflict, as the State Government had no case that they were not bound by the directive of the Central Government in the matter of the integration of services here.
K.C. Gupta And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 9 May, 1967
Counsel for the State of Punjab brought to our attention the contents of the return filed by the State in Civil Writ 2896/1965 where the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, were challenged as recited in the judgment of the Punjab High Court in K.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. There the State of Punjab contended that these rules were made in accordance with the advice of the Central Government and that in applying the Rules the State Government was subject to the directions which the Government of India might issue under Section 117 of the Act. Quite apart from this, Section 117 of the States Re-organisation Act, 1956, Seems to us to be quite clear. The section reads:
A.J. Patel And Ors. vs The State Of Gujarat And Ors. on 18 April, 1963
7. It was argued on behalf of the third respondent that the State of Punjab and concurrent authority with the Central Government to integrate the two services, and that when by the Punjab Services Integration Rules, 1957, which had been approved by the Central Government, integration had already been effected on the lines laid down in the directive of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies dated October 13, 1962, followed up by the joint seniority list as published on March 1, 1963, the Central Government had no authority to issue the directive so as to effect the list already drawn up or the principles on which it was drawn up. Counsel for the third respondent referred to the decisions in A.]-Patel and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. AIR 1965 Gujarat 23 & K.C. Gupta and Ors. v. Union of India, AIR 1969 Punjab and Haryana in support of the contention that the State Government had concurrent power to integrate the services of the two States.
Roshan Lal Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 September, 1966
See also Roshan Lal Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1968 Punjab 47 where the same view was taken. So we held that the directive of the Central Government was binding on the State Government in the matter of integrating the two services and the State of Punjab or the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of that State could not have said that they will not review the promotions made before 12th April, 1962, as the directive of the Central Government required that all promotions after February 27, 1961, should be reviewed.
N. Desaiah And Ors. vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Ors. on 22 June, 1966
In Dr. JV. Desaiah and Ors. v. Government of A.P. and Ors. AIR 1968 Andhra Pradesh 5 it was held that the direction given by the Central Government under Section 117 of the States Reorganisation Act was binding on the State Government in the matter of integration of services.
M.A. Jaleel And Ors. vs The State Of Mysore By Chief Secretary To ... on 13 March, 1961
In MA. Jaleel and Ors. v. The State of Mysore and Ors. AIR 1961 Mysore 23 the High Court of Mysore took the view that the Central Government alone has authority to integrate the services of States on their re-organisation under the States Re-organisation Act, 1956.
1