Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.41 seconds)
Sita Ram Yadav vs Union Of India on 9 October, 2014 cites

Ram Kumar & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 2 December, 1987

16. Upon perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the  case of  Ram Kumar and others (supra)  coupled with the  the decision  taken by the Railway Board as resolved after deliberations in the meeting  of the DC/JCM railways, held on 16th & 17th March,2001 (supra) that the  Store Issuer and Store Chaser are performing the duties of Material Clerk  shall   be   created   in   appropriate   Grade   of   Rs.3050­4590,   we   are   of   the  opinion that in view of the fact that the petitioners No.1 and 2 have been  performing   the   duties   of   Store   Issuer   with   effect   from   26/10/1981   and  Store Chaser with effect from 02/12/1983 respectively, in all fairness the  respondents/Railways   ought   to   have   considered   their   claim   as   regards  their entitlement in the Grade of Rs.3050­4590 (RSRP) in accordance with  7 W.P.No.5086/2009(S) the decision taken by the Railway Board as resolved after deliberations in  the  meeting   of   the   DC/JCM   railways,   held  on  16th  &   17th  March,2001  (Supra).  That has not been done.  Instead they have been shown to have  been promoted on ad hoc basis  in the newly upgraded work charged post  of Material Clerk, Grade Rs.3050­4590 (RSRP) without even referring to  the order passed by the Railways in existence as ordered by the CAT on  05/10/2006 (Supra).  However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that  entitlement   of  the   petitioners   in  the  grade   of   Rs.3050­4590   (RSRP)  as  ordered   by   the   CAT   was   to   be   prospective   in   nature.     Therefore,   the  benefit accorded to the petitioners in the grade of Rs.3050­4590 (RSRP)  shall though be effective prospectively, i.e., after the date of order dated  05/10/2006 passed in O.A.No.195 of 2005 but on regular/permanent basis  and   not   on  ad   hoc  basis   as   shown   in   the   impugned   order   dated  09/05/2007 passed by the respondents/Railways (supra).                                                                                   (Emphasis supplied)
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - M Rangnath - Full Document

Triveni Shankar Saxena vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 December, 1991

17. Before adverting to the submission as regards lien on the post held  by   petitioners,   it   is   considered   apposite   to   refer   to   the   meaning   and  concept of "lien" in service jurisprudence is well­known and understood for  its   legal   connotation   as   judicially   interpreted   by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme  Court and High Courts  In the case of Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State  of U.P., and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524, the Hon'ble Supreme Court  has held as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 151 - S R Pandian - Full Document

M.P. Tiwari vs Union Of India And Ors. on 6 November, 2013

24.     A   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Allahabad   High  Court in M.P.Tewari Vs. Union of India, 1974 ALL LJ  427 following the dictum laid down in the above Paresh  Chandra Nandi Vs. Controller of Stores (1970) 3 SCC  870   and   distinguishing   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  P.L.Dhingra Vs.  Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 has  observed that "a person can be said to acquire a lien  on a post only when he has been confirmed and made  permanent on that post and not earlier", with which we  are in agreement."
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 13 - V J Mehta - Full Document

Paresh Chandra Nandi vs Controller Of Stores, N.F. Railway, ... on 7 December, 1970

24.     A   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Allahabad   High  Court in M.P.Tewari Vs. Union of India, 1974 ALL LJ  427 following the dictum laid down in the above Paresh  Chandra Nandi Vs. Controller of Stores (1970) 3 SCC  870   and   distinguishing   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  P.L.Dhingra Vs.  Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 has  observed that "a person can be said to acquire a lien  on a post only when he has been confirmed and made  permanent on that post and not earlier", with which we  are in agreement."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - J M Shelat - Full Document

Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957

24.     A   learned   Single   Judge   of   the   Allahabad   High  Court in M.P.Tewari Vs. Union of India, 1974 ALL LJ  427 following the dictum laid down in the above Paresh  Chandra Nandi Vs. Controller of Stores (1970) 3 SCC  870   and   distinguishing   the   decision   of   this   Court   in  P.L.Dhingra Vs.  Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36 has  observed that "a person can be said to acquire a lien  on a post only when he has been confirmed and made  permanent on that post and not earlier", with which we  are in agreement."
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 809 - Full Document
1