Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.60 seconds)
Gurmeet Singh Randhawa vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 16 September, 2015 cites

Lal Chand Goyal vs Punjab State Agricultural Marketing ... on 11 February, 2014

The instructions dated 30.04.2015, vide which the Government had further clarified and superseded the instructions dated 30.10.2014 and 07.01.2015, were challenged before the Division Bench in CWP No.10911 of 2015 titled Lal Chand Vs. State of Punjab decided on 06.07.2015, wherein it has been held that the instructions do not have any retrospective effect but are only with immediate effect and the extension in service beyond the age of retirement was sort of incentive and employees with a clean slate record were to be retained and two distinct separate classes have been created. Relevant portion of the observations of the Division Bench read as under:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 12 - H S Sidhu - Full Document

M. Gopalakrishnaiah vs Union Of India on 10 May, 1994

(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970, the Government employee was also entitled for promotion if the post was available and thus, it was a vested right. Clause 7 of the instructions dated 22.01.2013 provided that even if there were Court cases, Vigilance enquiries, enquiries pending, the extension was to be given if the option had been exercised by the employee. The withdrawal vide instructions dated 30.10.2014 and the setting up of the Committee to look into the extensions against officers who had Vigilance/Criminal/Departmental enquiries and the subsequent instructions dated 07.01.2015, which clarified that the departmental enquiry should be under Rule 8 for major punishment and not on account of minor punishment and further reconsideration by the Committees was beyond the purview of Rule 3.26 and could not override the same. Similarly, the instructions dated 30.04.2015, wherein it was SAILESH RANJAN CWP No.13333 of 2015 & other connected cases -5- 2015.09.16 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document provided that extension could be withdrawn without issuing any notice was also challenged on the ground that once there was statutory right given, the said action could not be done without giving an opportunity of hearing and would amount to supplanting the rule itself. Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon M.Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India & another 1994 (8) SLR 229, State of Haryana Vs. Raghubir Dayal 1995 (1) SCC 133, Director General of Posts & others VS. B.Ravindran & another (1997) 1 SCC 641, Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa (2000) 6 SCC 332, Union of India & another Vs. Shardindu (2007) 6 SCC 276 and the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex Sub Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2015 (2) SCT 728.
Delhi High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 3 - D P Wadhwa - Full Document

State Of Haryana vs Raghubir Dayal on 10 November, 1994

(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970, the Government employee was also entitled for promotion if the post was available and thus, it was a vested right. Clause 7 of the instructions dated 22.01.2013 provided that even if there were Court cases, Vigilance enquiries, enquiries pending, the extension was to be given if the option had been exercised by the employee. The withdrawal vide instructions dated 30.10.2014 and the setting up of the Committee to look into the extensions against officers who had Vigilance/Criminal/Departmental enquiries and the subsequent instructions dated 07.01.2015, which clarified that the departmental enquiry should be under Rule 8 for major punishment and not on account of minor punishment and further reconsideration by the Committees was beyond the purview of Rule 3.26 and could not override the same. Similarly, the instructions dated 30.04.2015, wherein it was SAILESH RANJAN CWP No.13333 of 2015 & other connected cases -5- 2015.09.16 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document provided that extension could be withdrawn without issuing any notice was also challenged on the ground that once there was statutory right given, the said action could not be done without giving an opportunity of hearing and would amount to supplanting the rule itself. Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon M.Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India & another 1994 (8) SLR 229, State of Haryana Vs. Raghubir Dayal 1995 (1) SCC 133, Director General of Posts & others VS. B.Ravindran & another (1997) 1 SCC 641, Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa (2000) 6 SCC 332, Union of India & another Vs. Shardindu (2007) 6 SCC 276 and the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex Sub Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2015 (2) SCT 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 106 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Director General Of Posts & Ors vs B. Ravindran & Anr on 8 November, 1996

(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970, the Government employee was also entitled for promotion if the post was available and thus, it was a vested right. Clause 7 of the instructions dated 22.01.2013 provided that even if there were Court cases, Vigilance enquiries, enquiries pending, the extension was to be given if the option had been exercised by the employee. The withdrawal vide instructions dated 30.10.2014 and the setting up of the Committee to look into the extensions against officers who had Vigilance/Criminal/Departmental enquiries and the subsequent instructions dated 07.01.2015, which clarified that the departmental enquiry should be under Rule 8 for major punishment and not on account of minor punishment and further reconsideration by the Committees was beyond the purview of Rule 3.26 and could not override the same. Similarly, the instructions dated 30.04.2015, wherein it was SAILESH RANJAN CWP No.13333 of 2015 & other connected cases -5- 2015.09.16 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document provided that extension could be withdrawn without issuing any notice was also challenged on the ground that once there was statutory right given, the said action could not be done without giving an opportunity of hearing and would amount to supplanting the rule itself. Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon M.Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India & another 1994 (8) SLR 229, State of Haryana Vs. Raghubir Dayal 1995 (1) SCC 133, Director General of Posts & others VS. B.Ravindran & another (1997) 1 SCC 641, Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa (2000) 6 SCC 332, Union of India & another Vs. Shardindu (2007) 6 SCC 276 and the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex Sub Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2015 (2) SCT 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Ramesh Chandra Acharya vs Registrar, High Court Of Orissa & Anr on 26 June, 2000

(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970, the Government employee was also entitled for promotion if the post was available and thus, it was a vested right. Clause 7 of the instructions dated 22.01.2013 provided that even if there were Court cases, Vigilance enquiries, enquiries pending, the extension was to be given if the option had been exercised by the employee. The withdrawal vide instructions dated 30.10.2014 and the setting up of the Committee to look into the extensions against officers who had Vigilance/Criminal/Departmental enquiries and the subsequent instructions dated 07.01.2015, which clarified that the departmental enquiry should be under Rule 8 for major punishment and not on account of minor punishment and further reconsideration by the Committees was beyond the purview of Rule 3.26 and could not override the same. Similarly, the instructions dated 30.04.2015, wherein it was SAILESH RANJAN CWP No.13333 of 2015 & other connected cases -5- 2015.09.16 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document provided that extension could be withdrawn without issuing any notice was also challenged on the ground that once there was statutory right given, the said action could not be done without giving an opportunity of hearing and would amount to supplanting the rule itself. Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon M.Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India & another 1994 (8) SLR 229, State of Haryana Vs. Raghubir Dayal 1995 (1) SCC 133, Director General of Posts & others VS. B.Ravindran & another (1997) 1 SCC 641, Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa (2000) 6 SCC 332, Union of India & another Vs. Shardindu (2007) 6 SCC 276 and the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex Sub Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2015 (2) SCT 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Shardindu on 16 May, 2007

(b) of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1970, the Government employee was also entitled for promotion if the post was available and thus, it was a vested right. Clause 7 of the instructions dated 22.01.2013 provided that even if there were Court cases, Vigilance enquiries, enquiries pending, the extension was to be given if the option had been exercised by the employee. The withdrawal vide instructions dated 30.10.2014 and the setting up of the Committee to look into the extensions against officers who had Vigilance/Criminal/Departmental enquiries and the subsequent instructions dated 07.01.2015, which clarified that the departmental enquiry should be under Rule 8 for major punishment and not on account of minor punishment and further reconsideration by the Committees was beyond the purview of Rule 3.26 and could not override the same. Similarly, the instructions dated 30.04.2015, wherein it was SAILESH RANJAN CWP No.13333 of 2015 & other connected cases -5- 2015.09.16 19:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document provided that extension could be withdrawn without issuing any notice was also challenged on the ground that once there was statutory right given, the said action could not be done without giving an opportunity of hearing and would amount to supplanting the rule itself. Reliance was, accordingly, placed upon M.Gopalakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India & another 1994 (8) SLR 229, State of Haryana Vs. Raghubir Dayal 1995 (1) SCC 133, Director General of Posts & others VS. B.Ravindran & another (1997) 1 SCC 641, Ramesh Chandra Acharya Vs. Registrar, High Court of Orissa (2000) 6 SCC 332, Union of India & another Vs. Shardindu (2007) 6 SCC 276 and the Full Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in Ex Sub Rajender Singh Vs. Union of India & others 2015 (2) SCT 728.
Supreme Court of India Cites 30 - Cited by 59 - A K Mathur - Full Document

Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar & Anr vs Mngt. Of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti & Anr on 27 September, 2001

On the principle of natural justice, the judgments cited are Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar Vs. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti 2001 (8) SCC 378, Canara Bank & others Vs. Shri Debasis Das & others 2003 (4) SCC 557 and Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh and another Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation and others (2007) 14 SCC 234.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 63 - V N Khare - Full Document
1   2 Next