Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
Ripu Daman Verma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 February, 2007 cites

Dr. P.P.C. Rawani And Ors. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 29 October, 1991

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel on both parties and have also perused the records. We find that the Apex Court has made an in-depth examination of issue involved in this case, while dealing with on identical case of similarly placed Officers of Central Health Services i.e. Dr. P.P.C. Rawani and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. and Dr. Harbans Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8076 of 1997 in C.A. No. 3519 of 1984 and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2620-59 of 1985 and I.A. Nos. 3, 5,6 and 7 of 1990, decided on October 29, 1991 [Reported in (1992)1 Supreme Court Cases, 331]. The Apex Court on detailed examination of the issues includes decided the broad principles to determine the inter-se-seniority of direct recruits v. Ad hoc appointees in Group 'A' cadre and had issued a direction to regularize the ad hoc appointees in Group 'A' cadre w.e.f. January 1, 1973 or the date of their original substantive in accordance with rules whichever is later. The issue has been debated by the Apex Court in Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment, which for convenience is reproduced as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

T. R. Dhananjaya vs J. Vasudevan on 25 August, 1995

6. In view of these settled principles of law by the Apex Court in case of similarly placed employees of the Central Health Scheme, the judgment in question applies to the case of the applicant, in to-to and hence the request of the applicant to treat him as a separate class and to issue direction to respondents to count the period of his ad hoc service w.e.f. 10.7.1969 will clearly prejudice the case of direct recruits who have also not been impleaded as necessary parties in the Original Application. Moreover, if we entertain the request of the applicant the same will be in clear breech of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the case of similarly placed employees of the Central Health Service. Moreover, in the case of T.R. Dhananjaya v. J. Vasudevan , the Apex Court has held that:
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 54 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

B.S. Bajwa & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 11 December, 1997

7. It will also not be prudent to entertain a request for change in the date of seniority after more than 3 decades and that too when the applicant has already retired from service on 28.2.2001 as affirmed by him in Para 5 (G) of his Original Application. It has been held by the Apex Court further in the case of B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab and Ors. 1998(3) SLJ 28 (SC) : 1998 SCC (L&S) 611.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 249 - Full Document

Harbans Singh And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 8 November, 1990

5. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Counsel on both parties and have also perused the records. We find that the Apex Court has made an in-depth examination of issue involved in this case, while dealing with on identical case of similarly placed Officers of Central Health Services i.e. Dr. P.P.C. Rawani and Ors. v. U.O.I. and Ors. and Dr. Harbans Singh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 8076 of 1997 in C.A. No. 3519 of 1984 and Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 2620-59 of 1985 and I.A. Nos. 3, 5,6 and 7 of 1990, decided on October 29, 1991 [Reported in (1992)1 Supreme Court Cases, 331]. The Apex Court on detailed examination of the issues includes decided the broad principles to determine the inter-se-seniority of direct recruits v. Ad hoc appointees in Group 'A' cadre and had issued a direction to regularize the ad hoc appointees in Group 'A' cadre w.e.f. January 1, 1973 or the date of their original substantive in accordance with rules whichever is later. The issue has been debated by the Apex Court in Paras 2, 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment, which for convenience is reproduced as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1