Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (3.87 seconds)
Pno No. 952010892 Sub Inspector Jai ... vs State Of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 26 June, 2020
cites
S.D. Bandi vs Divisional Traffic Officer, Ksrtc & Ors on 5 July, 2013
In Union of India vs. Vimal Bhai, (2014) 13 SCC 766 (Para-5) Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to get the Government accommodation vacated from those who are unauthorisedly occupying the same and action must be taken strictly in accordance with para 33 of the judgment in S.D. Bandi case (supra).
Jag Pal Singh Bhatt vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 1 February, 2002
"5. A Division Bench in Jag Pal Singh Bhatt Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh 2002(2) AWC 988 has laid down the law in the matter of a State Government Employee that he cannot continue to occupy the official accommodation since he has been transferred from there.
Satish Chandra Yadav vs The State Of U.P. Thru The Director ... on 9 January, 2020
10. The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.D. Bandi (supra) has been followed by a Bench of this Court in Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Ors. 2016 (2) ADJ 395 and a direction has been issued as under:- "Therefore, the authority concerned shall adopt an uniform policy for granting extension to retain the government accommodation beyond prescribed limit.
Union Of India vs Vimal Bhai . on 24 March, 2014
In Union of India vs. Vimal Bhai, (2014) 13 SCC 766 (Para-5) Hon'ble Supreme Court directed to get the Government accommodation vacated from those who are unauthorisedly occupying the same and action must be taken strictly in accordance with para 33 of the judgment in S.D. Bandi case (supra).
Lok Prahari vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 1 August, 2016
In Lok Prahari vs. State of U.P. (2016) 8 SCC 389 (Paras-41, 46), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "41.
Dayanand Bandi S/O Manohar Bandi vs North-West Karnataka Road Transport ... on 17 April, 2012
In light of the law laid down in the aforesaid case, relying on the judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that the impugned order has been passed in consonance with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The petitioner could not place any fact or law which could support his case for overstaying in the official accommodation without any authority of law. The judgement cited by the petitioner does not discuss any aspect of law and in light of the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Copurt in this regard no reliance can be placed on the said judgement cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner which seems to be clearly contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.