Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.28 seconds)
Shri Shivaji Shripati Gaikwad & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 30 September, 2011 cites

State Of Jammu & Kashmir vs Triloki Nath Khosa & Ors on 26 September, 1973

In the case of The State of Jammu and Kashmir v/s ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:32 ::: 23 WP2092-4236.11 Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & ors., reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19, the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court stated, "16. ......... It is wrong to characterize the operation of a service rule as retrospective for the reason that it applies to existing employees. A rule which classifies such employees for promotional purposes, undoubtedly operates on those who entered service before the framing of the rule but it operates in future, in the sense that it governs the future right of promotion of those who are already in service."..............................
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 2535 - V R Iyer - Full Document

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

In the case of K.Nagara v/s State of A.P. reported in A.I.R. 1985 SC 551, the Supreme Court held, "It is well settled that the service rules can be as much amended, as they can be made, under the proviso to Article 309 and that the power to amend these rules carried with it the power to amend them retrospectively. The power is conferred by the proviso to Article 309 is of legislative character and is to be distinguished from an ordinary rule making power. .......The rules and amendment made under proviso to Article 309 can be altered or repealed by the legislature but until that is done, the exercise of this power cannot be challenged as lacking in authority."
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 332 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

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

While reiterating the very same view in the subsequent judgment in the case of T.R.Kapur v/s State of Haryana, reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 415, the Supreme Court held, ".......... 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 condition of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This rule is however subject to a well recognized principle that the benefits acquired under the existing rules cannot be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect. That is to say, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:47:32 ::: 21 WP2092-4236.11 there is no power to make such a rule under the proviso to Art.309 which affects or impairs vested rights. Therefore, unless it is specifically provided in the rules the employees who are already promoted before the amendment of the rules cannot be reverted and their promotions cannot be recalled. In other words, such rules laying down qualification for promotion made with retrospective effect must necessarily satisfy the test of Art.14 and 16(1) of the Constitution."
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 215 - A P Sen - Full Document
1