Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Tekraj Vasandi Alias K.L. Basandhi vs Union Of India & Others on 10 December, 1987
The Court relied principally on the decision in Tekraj Vasandi v. Union of India11.
Zee Telefilms Ltd. & Anr vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 February, 2005
7. Insofar as the example of practices prevailing in other organizations is concerned, we are not impressed with the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that since the other organizations under Government of India have extended the benefits of OM dated 18.11.2009 even to persons who are matriculate and have been working as Pharmacists, the same benefits should be extended to the applicant as well. We take note of the fact that the respondent organization is an autonomous organization, though largely funded by the Government, but it has its own rules governing the service conditions of its employees. Therefore, whatever be the practices prevailing in rest of the organizations, the same will not ipso facto apply to the respondent organization. This is supported by the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Zee Telefilms & Another versus Union of India & Others [2005 (4) SCC 649] where five Judges Bench held that the autonomous structure of the body entitles the same to draw pay from its own rules and the practices & rules prevailing in other bodies will not be applicable to it merely on the ground that they happened to be similarly placed. For the sake of clarity, we rely upon para 20 of the afore judgment, which is being extracted hereunder:-
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Sabhajit Tewary vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 February, 1975
However, as far as the decision in Sabhajit Tewary v. Union of India6 was concerned, it was noted (at SCC p. 583, para 8) that the 'decision has been distinguished and watered down in the subsequent decisions'."
Chander Mohan Khanna vs National Council Of Educational ... on 17 September, 1991
Perhaps this rather overenthusiastic application of the broad limits set by Ajay Hasia may have persuaded this Court to curb the tendency in Chander Mohan Khanna v. National Council of Educational Research and Training. The Court referred to the tests formulated in Sukhdev Singh, Ramana, Ajay Hasia and Som Prakash Rekhi but striking a note of caution said that (at SCC p. 580, para 2) 'these are merely indicative indicia and are by no means conclusive or clinching in any case'. In that case, the question arose whether the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) was a 'State' as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. NCERT is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. After considering the provisions of its memorandum of association as well as the rules of NCERT, this Court came to the conclusion that since NCERT was largely an autonomous body and the activities of NCERT were not wholly related to governmental functions and that the government control was confined only to the proper utilization of the grant and since its funding was not entirely from government resources, the case did not satisfy the requirements of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution.
1