Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.51 seconds)Prem Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh Secretary on 2 September, 2019
The provisions as made in the CSR as well as in the 1961 Rules fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others6. Prem Singh was essentially considering the claim of work-charged employees who had been continued in that capacity for decades and ultimately denied pensionary benefits with the respondents taking the position that service rendered in such an establishment is not liable to be included while calculating qualifying service in accordance with the provisions made in the CSR and the 1961 Rules. The Supreme Court in Prem Singh ultimately came to hold:-
State Of U.P.Throu.Secy.Secretariat ... vs Bhanu Pratap Verma And Another on 13 December, 2019
In State of U.P. And 4 Others v. Bhanu Pratap Sharma9, the Court was called upon to consider the question whether the period spent by an employee prior to regularisation was liable to be taken into consideration for the purposes of pension. That claim was challenged in light of the provisions made in the Ordinance with the appellants there contending that in light of Sections 2, 3 and 4 thereof, the period spent prior to regularisation would stand excluded. Dealing with the aforesaid contention, the Division Bench held: -
State Of U.P. And 4 Others vs Narayan Singh Sharma on 19 February, 2021
It would also be pertinent to notice yet another decision handed down by a Division Bench of the Court in State of U.P. And 4 Others v. Narayan Singh Sharma10. Dealing with an identical question, the Division Bench there held:-
Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Senior Sec. ... vs J.A.J. Vasu Sena on 21 August, 2019
However and as was noticed hereinabove, provisions similar to those enshrined in Regulation 370 remain preserved and untouched in the proviso to Rule 3(8). That proviso has neither been amended nor deleted. Regard must be had to the well settled and recognised function of a proviso namely of carving out an exception to what otherwise would stand governed in the principal provision. The Court bears in mind the functionality of a proviso as was explained by the Supreme Court in Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial Sr. Sec. School v. J.A.J. Vasu Sena12:-
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 361 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Yogendra Singh Indolia And 14 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 10 February, 2020
The Division Bench while rendering judgment on that batch firstly took note of the judgment rendered by the Court in Dr. Yogendra Singh And Others v. State of U.P. And Others2 and the directions issued therein for the claim of regularisation being considered in accordance with the policy decision of the State Government which extended the benefit of regularisation to all ad hoc Medical Officers who had been appointed on or before 17 July 1991. The aforesaid decision in Dr. Yogendra Singh was unsuccessfully assailed by the respondents before the Supreme Court which dismissed the Special Leave Petitions on 02 April 1998. The Division Bench also noticed the provisions made in respect of regularisation in the U.P. Regularisation of Ad hoc Appointments (On Post Within the Purview of the Public Service Commission) (Third Amendment) Rules (2001)3. The Court in Dr. Dhirendra Prakash Tiwari ultimately proceeded to allow the writ petitions in the following terms: -
Article 370 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Brahamanand Singh & 14 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 19 September, 2017
E. EVALUATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE
Before proceeding to deal with the submissions addressed by the learned Additional Advocate General relating to the terms of the Validating Act and the 1961 Rules, it would be appropriate to firstly deal with the submission advanced based on Brahamanand Singh. The Court in Brahamanand Singh was essentially called upon to consider a situation where an employee came to be regularized post 01 April 2005 and, in that context, whether he would be entitled to claim pensionary benefits. It becomes pertinent to note that Rule 2(3) of the 1961 Rules had come to be amended with effect from 07 April 2005 and provided that they shall not apply to employees entering service on or after 01 April 2005. The Court took into consideration the admitted fact that the services of the petitioner in that case had come to be terminated. The order of termination was ultimately set aside with the writ petition being allowed on 07 November 2006. It was in the aforesaid background that it was held that any period of service falling prior to 7 November 2006 was not liable to be countenanced. It then took into consideration that fact that the order of regularisation which came to be passed in 2007 was never assailed. The Court held that the effective date of regularisation which stands mentioned in that order cannot be questioned after retirement. The aforesaid decision, strictly speaking, does not deal with the questions which arise and fall for our consideration in this batch for more than one reason.