Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 24 (0.24 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Anr vs Tarsem Singh on 13 August, 2008
6. Moreover, a recurring cause of action does not attract limitation, as held by the Apex Court in Union of India v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648.
Apangshu Mohan Lodh And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors on 30 October, 2003
In the matter of limitation the power is discretionary and is to be liberally construed, as held by the Apex Court in Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State Tripura, (2004) SCC (L&S) 10.
Madras Port Trust vs Hymanshu International By Its ... on 3 January, 1979
In Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International (1979) 4 SCC 176 the Apex Court ruled that technical plea has to be avoided by the Government as a model employer.
Union Of India & Ors vs Shantiranjan Sarkar on 13 January, 2009
As also held in Union of India v. Shantiranjan Sarkar, (2009) 3 SCC 90 that in the matter of limitation under Administrative Tribunals Act, Union of India cannot take advantage of wrong in an equitable relief.
Ravindra Nath vs State Bank Of India & Ors on 17 December, 2008
9. Lastly, in writ jurisdiction, limitation is immaterial and the matter is to be heard on merits if reasonable explanation is tendered, as ruled by the Apex Court in Ravindra Nath v. State Bank of India & another, 2009 (1) SCALE 130.
Dkshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors vs Bachan Singh on 30 July, 2009
10. With the above backdrop of the ratio decidendi (supra), applicants, who were in position on 1.1.1986 when IV Central Pay Commissions recommendations and subsequent OM of 1.5.1987 had come into being and before new Pension Scheme of 1986 has been introduced by the Government w.e.f. 1.1.1986 the respondents have not deemed applicants on adoption of the OM ibid as a pensioner, is a continuing cause of action, which is recurring and a decision taken in 2000 when not communicated to the applicants, the issue of option if not found to be noted to the employees not to be deemed as circulated as ruled by the Apex Court in Dakshin Haryana Bijlivitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh, 2009 (10) SCALE 293. A Fundamental Right of grant of pension does not attract limitation. Moreover, on an inaction, the Government is precluded from raising hyper technical plea to defeat the rightful claim of applicants, as such the case being good on merit and the order passed in 2000 since been reiterated to the applicants in 2007, we do not find the objection raised by the respondents as apt in law. Accordingly, the objection stands overruled.
Union Of India And Anr vs S.L. Verma And Ors on 28 November, 2006
18. Shri Behera also stated that this OM was scrutinized by the Apex Court on interpretation in Union of India v. S.L. Verma, 2006 (14) SCALE 56, which on all fours, covers the present issue.