Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.99 seconds)
Union Of India vs The Central Administrative Tribunal on 29 September, 2008 cites

T.R. Kapur & Ors vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 17 December, 1986

In this connection, it is profitable to refer a decision of this Court in T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana wherein it is held that rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot affect or impair vested rights, unless it is specifically so provided in the statutory rules concerned. It is obvious that an executive direction stands even on a much weaker footing. . . . "
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 215 - A P Sen - Full Document

B. S. Vadera vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 March, 1968

"16. It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. and State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa. It is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 191 - C A Vaidyialingam - Full Document

Raj Kumar Karwal vs Union Of India And Ors.Withkirpal Mohan ... on 21 March, 1990

"16. It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. and State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa. It is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 62 - Cited by 503 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document

K. Nagaraj & Ors. Etc. Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. Etc on 18 January, 1985

"16. It is well settled that the power to frame rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, Raj Kumar v. Union of India, K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. and State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa. It is equally well-settled that any rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualifications for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well-recognised principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 332 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1   2 3 Next