Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 3 in The All India Services Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The All India Services Act, 1951 [Entire Act]
S.K. Saha And Others vs Prem Prakash Agarwal And Others on 13 November, 1993
Another case relied is S.K. Saha's ?case (supra). It was held in the said judgment that the Apex Court has repeatedly decried any attempt on the part of the appointing authority to give a notional seniority from a retrospective date, especially, when this process affects the seniority of those who have already entered into the service. The said case would have helped the plaintiff had it not given option for being included in the initial recruitment. He after having been included in the initial recruitment from 1.10.1966 his seniority has to be determined as initial recruit. The said judgment also does not help the plaintiff.
K. Narayani Hegde (Dead) By Lrs. vs State Of Karnataka And Ors. on 3 February, 2000
On 17th August, 1972 the Central Government had cancelled the initial recruitment of 85 officers consequent to the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1586 of 1968. In Writ Petition No. 1179 of 1972 filed by the plaintiff challenging Sub-rule (3-A) of Recruitment Rules, 1966 the learned Advocate General had made a statement that promotion given to the plaintiff in the year 1969 will not be in any manner effected and in spite of the above statement of the learned Advocate General the plaintiff has not been given benefit of higher post and the emoluments to which he was entitled. After setting aside the initial recruitment seniority list was published in which the name of the plaintiff was at Serial No. 4 whereas after making of the first recruitment in March, 1974 and in the seniority list issued thereafter the plaintiff has not been given due seniority and his seniority has been effected. According to Rule 8 of the India Forests Service (Cadre) Rules, 1966 every cadre post is required to be filled up by a cadre officer which has also been laid down by the Apex Court in ; Syed Khalid Rizvi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.. By giving retrospective effect to the initial recruitment from 1.10.1966 the plaintiff's seniority and accrued right has been effected which are against the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in ; D.P. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. ; S.K. Saha v. Prem Prakash Agarwala and Ors., and ; K. Narayanan and Ors. v. Karnataka and Ors..The plaintiff having given the benefit of the pay scale, was also entitled for the benefit of higher post, emoluments and seniority. There cannot be any estoppal or waiver against law. The plaintiff is entitled for benefit by virtue of he being promoted with effect from 17.5.1969 which cannot be taken away or effected in any manner by subsequent initial recruitment which was given retrospective effect from 1.10.1966. Sri Gupta submitted that the cross objection filed by the plaintiff- respondent is liable to be allowed.
Syed Khalid Rizvi And Ors. And Ramesh ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 20 November, 1992
As per above rule only a cadre officer can be appointed on a cadre post. This was also laid down by the Apex Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi's case (supra). In the written statement filed by State of U.P. it was clearly stated that prior to the constitution of India Forest Service there were only 45 posts in U.P. Forest Service. The plaintiff was at Serial No. 52 in the combined list of permanent and officiating Deputy Conservator of Forests. The plaintiff was only functioning as Deputy Conservator of Forests in the State Forest Service against a temporary post. Consequent upon the encadrement of 63 posts in the Indian Forest Service with effect from 1.10.1966 the plaintiff continued to officiate against the cadre post in the absence of suitable cadre officers. The initial recruitment was made in 1966-67 in which 85 officers were included and the plaintiff was not found suitable. Those officers were manning the cadre post when their initial recruitment was quashed on 11.12.1970. The claim of the plaintiff stems on the strength of the quashment of initial recruitment by this Court. When initial recruitment was quashed very few officers were in the cadre who were promotee officers including the plaintiff. The plaintiffs contention is that since persons who were allowed to continue on the post of Conservator of Forests, Additional Chief Conservator of Forests and Chief Conservator of Forest were non cadre officers, they were required to be removed and plaintiff ought to have been appointed on the post with the emolument.
Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. vs Tushar Ranjan Mohanty And Ors. on 14 July, 1994
25. The judgment of the Apex Court in ; Union of India and Ors. v. Tushar Ranjan Mohanthy and Ors., was in a case where Rule 13 of the Indian Statistical Service Rules, 1961 bringing appointment by promotion within the purview of reservation retrospectively with effect from 27,11.1972 was held to be unreasonable and arbitrary. The said judgment has no applicable in the facts of the present case.
Section 80 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Desoola Rama Rao & Anr vs State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors on 24 February, 1988
20. One more submission made by Sri Gupta is with regard to the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General before this Court in the writ petition filed by the plaintiff. Sri Gupta submitted that Government is bound by the undertaking given by the learned Advocate General. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in ; R.K. Rama Rao and Anr. v. State of A.P. and Ors.. The copy of the judgment of the High Court in which undertaking of the learned Advocate General has been noted is at page 82 of the paper book filed on behalf of the respondents. The said judgment is judgment of this Court dated 1.2.1974 in Writ Petition No. 1179 of 1972. Second paragraph of the said judgment is extracted below:
D.P. Sharma & Ors vs Union Of India & Anr on 21 February, 1989
23. The judgment relied by learned Counsel for the plaintiff in support of his submissions also needs consideration. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in D.P. Sharma's case (supra). In the said case the rules for determining the seniority were on the length of continuous service which were subsequently changed providing confirmation as a basis of seniority. In the said background the Apex Court held that rules cannot impair the existing rights of officials who were appointed long prior to coming into force of the Rules. In the present case there is no rule changing the basis of determining the seniority, to the contrary rule for fresh initial recruitment and to give it retrospective effect has been specifically framed being Rule 4(3A) which is clearly permissible by Section 3(1A) of All India Services Act, 1951. The said case does not help the plaintiff in the present case.
1