Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.22 seconds)
Dr. (Mrs.) Rupinder Kaur Natt vs State Of Punjab & Others on 18 August, 2009 cites

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of L.P.A. No.73 of 2007 submitted that the appellant should be held entitled to salary for the period from 23.2.2000 when appointments were first made to the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers after the selection process and her seniority be reframed by giving her two more marks in the Sports Category. Maximum marks in the said category being five and she having been awarded only three, she was entitled to two more marks. The appellant should also be awarded damages. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010, Paras Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC 1212 and Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another AIR 2005 SC 2372 in support of the prayer for backwages on the ground that the appellant was willing to work but was not allowed to work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Allahabad Jal Sansthan vs Daya Shankar Rai & Anr on 3 May, 2005

8. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of L.P.A. No.73 of 2007 submitted that the appellant should be held entitled to salary for the period from 23.2.2000 when appointments were first made to the posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers after the selection process and her seniority be reframed by giving her two more marks in the Sports Category. Maximum marks in the said category being five and she having been awarded only three, she was entitled to two more marks. The appellant should also be awarded damages. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman AIR 1991 SC 2010, Paras Ram v. State of Haryana AIR 1993 SC 1212 and Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai and another AIR 2005 SC 2372 in support of the prayer for backwages on the ground that the appellant was willing to work but was not allowed to work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 258 - S B Sinha - Full Document

J.S. Parihar vs Ganpat Duggar & Ors on 11 September, 1996

12. Coming now to L.P.A. No.74 of 2007, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in contempt proceedings relief for backwages and seniority should have been gone into. LPA No.73 of 2007 7 Alternatively, denial thereof was not justified. He cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291, Jhareswar Prasad Paul & another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly & others JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 290 and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others JT 2004 (8) SC 163 to submit that in contempt jurisdiction, no further order could be passed. This contention can also not be accepted for the reasons already mentioned. Judgments relied upon are of no help to the appellant. The appellant himself approached the contempt Court to pass further orders and orders have been passed in her favour in the manner earlier indicated. Contempt petition was only confined to compliance of order of appointment. The same stood complied. Still, the appellant herself raised further questions. In any case, the appellant had no valid justification for claiming higher seniority or backwages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 355 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Jhareswar Prasad Paul& Anr vs Tarak Nath Ganguly & Ors on 8 May, 2002

12. Coming now to L.P.A. No.74 of 2007, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in contempt proceedings relief for backwages and seniority should have been gone into. LPA No.73 of 2007 7 Alternatively, denial thereof was not justified. He cited judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291, Jhareswar Prasad Paul & another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly & others JT 2002 (Suppl.1) SC 290 and Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and others JT 2004 (8) SC 163 to submit that in contempt jurisdiction, no further order could be passed. This contention can also not be accepted for the reasons already mentioned. Judgments relied upon are of no help to the appellant. The appellant himself approached the contempt Court to pass further orders and orders have been passed in her favour in the manner earlier indicated. Contempt petition was only confined to compliance of order of appointment. The same stood complied. Still, the appellant herself raised further questions. In any case, the appellant had no valid justification for claiming higher seniority or backwages.
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 154 - D P Mohapatra - Full Document
1