Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.19 seconds)Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. And ... vs N.R. Vairamani And Anr on 1 October, 2004
In support of such contention, reliance was
placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harpal Kaur Chahal
(Smt) v. Director, Punjab Instructions, Punjab and Another reported in 1995
Supp (4) SCC 706 and Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Another v.
N.R.Vairamani and Another reported in (2004)8 SCC 579.
Union Of India And Ors vs Jaipal Singh on 3 November, 2003
In
support of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Jaipal Singh reported
in (2004)1 SCC 121. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no estoppel
for the State in arguing the above contention before this Court. In support
of such contention, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Col.B.J.Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others
reported in (2006)11 SCC 709.
P.Chinniyan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 18 June, 2014
24.The validity of fixing such a cut-off date was the subject matter of
consideration in the case of P.Chinniyan v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its
Secretary to Government, Forest and Environment (FR-2) Department, Chennai ?
600 009 and Others reported in (2014)6 MLJ 316 and the Court held that the
prescription of cut-off date as 01.04.2003 for absorption into regular
service under Rule 11(4) to count half of the service rendered prior to
absorption has no rational basis and the same is arbitrary and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Thangamani Ammal And Ors. vs Ponnusamy And Ors. on 30 August, 1996
600
009 and Others v. G.Ponnusamy and Others [W.A.No.720 of 2013, dated
23.04.2013].
1