Krushnakant B. Parmar vs Union Of India & Anr on 15 February, 2012
[8] Hon'ble Apex Court in Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of
India and Another, reported in (2012) 3 SCC 178, has held that:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of Orissa vs Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors on 7 February, 1967
[10] In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Another,
reported in AIR (1967) SC 1269 (V 54 C 264) the Hon'ble Apex Court has
observed as under:
Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr vs The Chiief Election Commissioner, New ... on 2 December, 1977
In Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election
Commissioner & Ors. [1978] 2 SCR 272 at 308F the Constitution Bench held
that 'civil consequence' covers infraction of not merely property or personal
right but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non- pecuniary damages.
In its comprehensive connotion everything that affects a citizen in his civil
life inflicts a civil consequence. Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page
1487 defined civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or
country they include rights capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil
action.
A.K. Roy Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 December, 1981
In A.K. Kriapak and Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors., [1969] 2 SCC 262 a Constitution bench of this court held that the
distinction between quasi judicial and administrative order has gradually
become thin. Now it is totally clipsed and obliterated. The aim of the rule of
the natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively to prevent
miscarriage of justice. These rules operate in the area not covered by law
validly made or expressly excluded as held in Col.
D.K. Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries Ltd on 7 May, 1993
[9] In D. K. Yadav v. J. M. A. Industries Ltd. reported in (1993)
3 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
J.N. Sinha vs Union Of India And Anr. on 6 April, 1971
J.N. Sinha v. Union of
India & Anr. [1971] 1 SCR 791. It is settled law that certified standing orders
have statutory force which do not expressly exclude the application of the
principles of natural justice. Conversely the Act made exceptions for the
application of principles of natural justice necessary implication from specific
provisions in the Act like Ss.25F; 25FF; 25FFF; etc, the need for temporary
hands to cope with sudden and temporary spurt of work demands appointment
temporarily to a service of such temporary workmen to meet such exigencies
and as soon as the work or service are completed, the need to dispense with
the services may arise. In that situation, on compliance of the provisions of s.
25F resort could be had to retrench the employees in conformity therewith
particular statute or statutory rules or orders having statutory flavour may also
exclude the application of the principles of natural justice expressly or by
necessary implication. In other respects the principles of natural justice would
apply unless the employer should justify its exclusion on given special and
exceptional exigencies.
Br.Manager, Lic Of India & Ors. vs Om Prakash Kumawat & Ors. on 13 May, 2009
[13] According to him, the committee was not competent enough to
pass termination order, but, according to this Court it is not necessary as the
principle laid down in Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others v.
OM Prakash in Civil Appeal No.4393 of 2010 wherein, it has been held the
officer who has abandoned the office requires no consideration and prayed
to dismiss the writ petition in limine. For the purpose of reference, the
relevant paragraphs may be reflected hereinbelow:
1