Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.23 seconds)
Lokesh Kumar Sharma vs Income Tax Department on 12 May, 2023 cites

Vishvendra Singh vs Union Of India & Anr on 12 August, 2022

11. We are also in agreement with the judgments relied by the official respondents and more particularly in an identical case decided by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2017 in a bunch of cases, namely O.A. No. 206/2016, (Vishvendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.), & OA No. 207/2016 (Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and other connected OAs, wherein this Tribunal has dismissed these OAs lacking in merit.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bhagwan Dass Pawaiya And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 24 November, 1989

11. We are also in agreement with the judgments relied by the official respondents and more particularly in an identical case decided by this Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 30.05.2017 in a bunch of cases, namely O.A. No. 206/2016, (Vishvendra Singh & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.), & OA No. 207/2016 (Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., and other connected OAs, wherein this Tribunal has dismissed these OAs lacking in merit.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

Kailash Prasad Meena vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 May, 2017

2(b). The applicant further states that he was not well and was suffering from dengue. But when he was fit, he was not taken back in service and was communicated order dated 07.11.2019 by which his services were dispensed with as per the directions of the office. He along with few others had filed an OA before this Tribunal for pay revision and during the pendency of that OA, he has been communicated the order dated 07.11.2019 (Annexure A/1) whereby his services have been discontinued. The applicant is working from the year 2013. Though his services are obtained from service provider agency but it is the respondent-department only who has direct control over the working of the applicant. The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kailash Meena & Ors. vs. UOI & Ors. has already directed the respondents to discontinue the contract system and engage the employees directly. Also in pursuance of the observations of Hon'ble High Court, respondents have passed order dated 07.02.2018 (Annexure A/4) by which they have discontinued the contract system. However, the benefits have been given only to those who were the party before the Hon'ble High Court. 4 OA No. 774/2019 The applicant is entitled for continuation in service. Those who were engaged after the applicant are continuing in service. The discontinuation of services of the applicant is clear violation of Section 19 (4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Thus, being aggrieved by discontinuation from service, applicant has approached this Tribunal praying for his continuance in service on contractual basis.
Delhi High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - C Shekhar - Full Document
1