Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Dullar Ram vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 6 January, 2017 cites

U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd vs R.S. Pandey And Anr on 26 September, 2005

During the course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that as per the knowledge of the petitioner no fresh order has been passed by the respondent authorities in the light of the order dated 7.4.2016 passed in the aforesaid Special Appeal (Defective) No. 246 of 2016 (State of UP vs R.N. Pandey) and therefore Sri R.N. Pandey is still continuing.
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 225 - A Pasayat - Full Document

State Of Rajasthan & Ors vs Daya Lal & Ors on 13 January, 2011

12. It has been held in a recent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 following the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularise an employee. Merely because some others had been regularised does not give any right to the respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 869 - R V Raveendran - Full Document

Secretary, State Of Karnataka And ... vs Umadevi And Others on 10 April, 2006

12. It has been held in a recent decision of this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Daya Lal, (2011) 2 SCC 429 following the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), (2006) 4 SCC 1 that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 cannot regularise an employee. Merely because some others had been regularised does not give any right to the respondent. An illegality cannot be perpetuated."
Supreme Court of India Cites 46 - Cited by 4959 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document
1