B. J. Shelat vs State Of Gujarat & Anr on 28 March, 1978
This decision was followed by another three-Judge
Bench in B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat [(1978) 2 SCC 202 :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Union Of India vs Sayed Muzaffar Mir on 20 September, 1994
14. Shri Sudama Ram, learned counsel for applicant relied heavily
on Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, 1995 SCC (L&S) 256
which dealt with question of notice of voluntary retirement
under Rule 1802 of Indian Railways Establishment Code. In the
said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that:-
Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs State Of Assam & Ors on 5 October, 1977
The second aspect of the matter is that it has been held
by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dinesh Chandra
Sangma v. State of Assam [(1977) 4 SCC 441 : 1978 SCC
(L&S) 7] , which has dealt with a pari materia provision
finding place in Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules, that
where the government servant seeks premature
retirement the same does not require any acceptance
and comes into effect on the completion of the notice
period.
State Of Haryana & Ors vs S.K.Singhal on 16 April, 1999
10. However, the non-consideration of application for voluntary
retirement by the respondents on the basis of the pleas taken in
the counter affidavit and non-passing of order, as contended
by the respondents has no force of law and to be rejected.
Regardless of any circumstances, it was incumbent upon the
respondents to pass an order upon the application within the
period of three months. On this point, reference may be made
to State of Haryana v/s S.K.Singhal, 1999 SCC (L&S) 859 wherein
the Hon'ble Apex Court in almost similar facts held that:
Tek Chand vs Dile Ram on 24 January, 2001
15. It would be fruitful to refer to Tek Chand v. Dile Ram, (2001) 3
SCC 290, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that:
Section 19 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
1