Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
By Its Principal Secretary Department ... vs Sri Nagesh Ankannagaru 63 Years S/O ... on 20 March, 2023 cites

State Of U.P.& Ors vs Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors on 17 October, 2014

4. Further, the arguments of the State that respondent herein has approached the Tribunal at a very belated stage was also considered having regard to the established principles of law which fell from the case of Aravind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and a decision of this court in the case of Nagappa K. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093, wherein it was held that, when a particular set of -6- WP No. 100819 of 2023 employees are given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Any act to the contrary would amount to discrimination and it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and persons similarly situated who did not approach the court earlier need not be denied the benefit and on the other hand, they too should be treated alike and given the benefit of the co-employees.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 1005 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Dr. M.K. Nanjappa And Ors. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 17 January, 2003

4. Further, the arguments of the State that respondent herein has approached the Tribunal at a very belated stage was also considered having regard to the established principles of law which fell from the case of Aravind Kumar Srivastava (supra) and a decision of this court in the case of Nagappa K. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 1986 KAR 3093, wherein it was held that, when a particular set of -6- WP No. 100819 of 2023 employees are given relief by the court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Any act to the contrary would amount to discrimination and it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and persons similarly situated who did not approach the court earlier need not be denied the benefit and on the other hand, they too should be treated alike and given the benefit of the co-employees.
Karnataka High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - K Ramanna - Full Document
1