Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)
M.P.E.B. Diploma Engineers' ... vs M.P. Electricity Board Through Its ... on 23 March, 2006 cites

State Of Orissa And Sri Jagannath Temple ... vs Chintamani Khuntia & Ors on 17 September, 1997

Similarly in the case of Daulatmal Jain and Ors. (supra) it has been held that if some persons have derived benefit illegally, other similarly circumstanced cannot claim the same benefit on the ground of equality as that would amount to perpetuating the illegality through judicial process which Court cannot do. In the case of Chintamani Khuntia and Ors. (supra) again the same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court holding that merely because by mistake a person has been conferred some benefit, others cannot allege discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, even if some wrong action was taken by the Board in allowing those persons to take casual leave or earned leave, would not confer any right in the present petitioners in order to pray that they may also be permitted to obtain casual leave or earned leave.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 16 - S C Sen - Full Document

Bank Of India vs T.S. Kelawala And Ors.Withs.U. Motors ... on 4 May, 1990

8. Apart from this, as argued by Shri Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents that the rally on 9/9/1987 was arranged to emphasis their demand and it was organised after the duty hours and for a limited period for an hours or two without effecting the working of the department and, therefore, the decision was taken by the Board to sanction the leave to those persons who took part in the rally. But, the case of rally of 9/9/1987 cannot be compared to the present factual scenario because in the present case there was a Dharna, Hunger Strike and Pen Down strike and the petitioners absented themselves from the work during the period 18/10/1993 to 26/10/1993. By inviting my attention to the decision of Bank of India v. T.S. Kelawala and Ors. , it has been submitted by Shri Jaiswal, learned senior counsel for the respondents, that even if there is no contract, Standing Orders or the service rules/regulations are silent on the subject, the management has the power to deduct the wages for absence hours of duty when the absence is a concerted action on the part of the employees and the absence is not disputed. It has been further submitted by placing reliance on this decision that whether the deduction from the wages will be pro rata for the period of absence only or will be for a longer period will depend upon the facts of each case such as whether there was any work to be done in the said period and whether it was accepted and acquiesced in and in that situation reduction of salary for the whole day cannot be said to be unjustified. The view of this Court is that there is merit in the contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 73 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Secretary, Jaipur Development ... vs Daulat Mal Jain on 20 September, 1996

Similarly in the case of Daulatmal Jain and Ors. (supra) it has been held that if some persons have derived benefit illegally, other similarly circumstanced cannot claim the same benefit on the ground of equality as that would amount to perpetuating the illegality through judicial process which Court cannot do. In the case of Chintamani Khuntia and Ors. (supra) again the same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court holding that merely because by mistake a person has been conferred some benefit, others cannot allege discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, even if some wrong action was taken by the Board in allowing those persons to take casual leave or earned leave, would not confer any right in the present petitioners in order to pray that they may also be permitted to obtain casual leave or earned leave.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 344 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1