Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.37 seconds)State Bank Of India & Ors. .... ... vs Aspal Kaur ...Respondent(S) on 1 February, 2007
Thus, as per the judgment referred in State Bank of India
& Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur (supra), the claim cannot be
decided as per 2005 scheme providing for ex-gratia
payment. The circular dated 14.02.2005 being an
administrative or executive order cannot have retrospective
effect so as to take away the right accrued to the
respondent as per circular of 1993.
Article 323A in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 323B in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Canara Bank & Anr vs M. Mahesh Kumar on 15 May, 2015
49. The Hon'ble Apex Court applying the principle laid
down in State Bank of India & Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur
(supra) has considered the factual aspect in Canara Bank
and Anr. v. M. Mahesh Kumar (supra), wherein the fact
leading to the said case was that the father of the
dependent died on 10.10.1998 while he was serving as a
Clerk in the bank and the dependent had applied timely for
W.P.(S) No.742 of 2020
17
compassionate appointment as per the "Dying in Harness
Scheme" dated 08.05.1993 which was in force at that time.
The bank rejected the dependent's claim on 30.06.1999
recording that there are no indigent circumstances for
providing employment to the dependent. Again on
07.11.2001, the bank sought for particulars in connection
with the issue of the dependent's employment.
Section 28 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Contempt Of Courts Act, 1971
L. Chandra Kumar vs Union Of India And Others on 18 March, 1997
31. This Court, before entering into the legality and
propriety of the said order, needs to refer herein the power
conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India so far as it relates to interfering the
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is only
to be exercised by way of power of judicial review as per the
judgment rendered by the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of L Chandra Kumar v. Union of
India & Others reported in (1997) 3 SCC 261 whereby and
whereunder the Constitution Bench has laid down the
proposition that any order passed by the Tribunal is
amenable to screening under the power of judicial review to
W.P.(S) No.742 of 2020
11
be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid judgment needs to be referred herein which reads
hereunder as :-
Sri B Satyanarayan Nagishetty vs Sri Mallangouda @ Mallikarjuna on 17 June, 2019
"30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the
Court is to see whether the decision impugned is
vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to
determine whether a decision is vitiated by error
apparent on the face of the record is whether the
error is self-evident on the face of the record or
whether the error requires examination or argument
to establish it. If an error has to be established by a
process of reasoning, on points where there may
reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an
error on the face of the record, as held by this Court
in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR
1960 SC 137. If the provision of a statutory rule is
reasonably capable of two or more constructions and
one construction has been adopted, the decision
would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It
is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant
statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof,
or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly
wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ
Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari."
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
55. Likewise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.C.
Basappa v. T. Nagappa, reported in (1955) 1 SCR 250,
wherein, it has been held as under:-