Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 40 (0.26 seconds)Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of U.P vs Dayanand Chakrawarty & Ors on 2 July, 2013
In the case of State of U.P. Vs. Dayanand
Chakrawarty (supra), the Hon‟ble Apex Court specifically held that
looking to nature, duties and function of the employees, there is
no reason to treat them differently in this case all those
employees appointed under the Rules of 2010 were substantively
working against the post sanctioned by the Government.
D.S. Nakara & Others vs Union Of India on 17 December, 1982
(63 of 68)
[CW-7568/2012 A-w connected matters]
Upon consideration of judgment of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in
the case of D.S. Nakara Vs. U.O.I. (supra) coupled with Article 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India, we are of the firm opinion that
on the one hand the State Government is owning the
responsibility of the employees working against the sanctioned
post in the aided institution and framed Rules of 2010 for their
appointment and absorption in the Government services, and on
the other hand, denied the benefit of pension to the employees
who were appointed prior to promulgation of the Rajasthan Civil
Service (Contributory Pension) Rules, 2005 to opt for pension as
provided under the Rules of 1996, therefore, obviously it is a case
of clear cut discrimination because under the Rules of 2010, the
State Government has created a separate cadre amongst
Government employees knowingly well that financial aid was
provided to the aided institutions for the purpose of imparting
education. Thus the provisions for denial of pension in the
aforesaid sub-rule (ix) of Rule 5, quoted herein above, is hereby
declared to be illegal and in contravention of the fundamental
rights of the employees to the extent of denial of pension to the
employees who were appointed prior to 2005.
Frank Anthony Public School ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 17 November, 1986
In the case of Frank Anthony Public School Vs. U.O.I (supra),
the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that scales of pay and allowances,
medical facilities, gratuity, provident fund and other prescribed
benefits of the employees of recognized private schools shall not
be less than those of employees of the corresponding status in the
schools runs by appropriate authority, and which further prescribe
the procedure for enforcement of requirement of the requirement
is a permissible regulation aimed at attracting competent staff and
consequently at the excellence of the educational institution.
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Interest Act, 1978
1. D.B.C.W.P. No.12960/2014. ... vs . State Of Raj.& Ors. on 18 December, 2014
State Of Punjab & Ors vs Harnam Singh & Ors on 17 January, 1997
In support of aforesaid contention, learned Additional
Advocate General invited our attention towards judgment in the
case of State of Punjab Vs. Harnam Singh (supra), in which
following adjudication has been made by the Hon‟ble Apex Court
in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6, which reads thus:
Indu Prakash vs Sate Of U.P.Through Secy. Basic Lko And 4 ... on 27 July, 2010
Similarly in the case of Indu Shekhar Singh Vs. Sate of
U.P. (supra), the following adjudication was made by the Hon‟ble
Apex Court in paragraphs 33 and 34, which reads as under: