Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.25 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
State Of H.P & Ors vs Rajesh Chander Sood Etc Etc on 28 September, 2016
(30) It is noteworthy to mention here that in the case of
State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors. v. Rajesh Chander Sood and
Ors (2016) 10 SCC 77, the similar situation came before the
Hon'ble Apex Court where Pension Scheme was introduced by the
Government for the employees of the independent Co-operative
Bodies and later on it was realized by the Government that the
Scheme is not viable financially and the same was withdrawn, and
such stand of the Government was not upheld by the Hon'ble Apex
Court by recording the findings in paras 92 and 93 as under :-
The Societies Registration Act, 1860
Harla vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 September, 1951
(22) In Harla v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1951 SC 467,
Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with vires of the Jaipur Opium
Act, which was enacted by a resolution passed by the Council of
Ministers, though never published in the Gazette, the court had
observed in paras 8 and 11 as under :-
B.K. Srinivasan & Another Etc. Etc vs State Of Karnataka & Ors on 19 January, 1987
In the case of B.K. Srinivasan & Ors v. State of
Karnataka & Ors (1987) 1 SCC 658, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held that the mode of publication must be prescribed by the
statute. In the event the statute does not contain any prescription
and even under the subordinate legislation there is silence in the
matter, the legislation will take effect only when it is published
through the customarily recognized official channel namely, the
Official Gazette. In this case Hon'ble Apex Court explained why
publication in the Official Gazette is necessary and mandatory in
regard to subordinate legislation and held in para 15 as under :-
Rajendra Agricultural University vs Ashok Kumar Prasad & Ors on 30 November, 2009
(25) In view of the settled proposition of law as laid down by
Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment, it is held that
the Pension Regulations 1994 did not come into effect as it was
not published in the Official Gazette and, therefore, no right would
be claimed on the basis of such unpublished Regulations.
(26) Now this court proceeds to decide the next issue -
The State Of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan Tukaram Bhoir & Ors on 8 December, 2015
(28) The similar issue came before the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of The State of Maharashtra and Ors. v. Bhagwan and
Ors. (supra), and the controversy was decided in paras 23 to 33
as under :-
T.M. Sampath vs The Union Minister Of Water Resources on 11 August, 2008
In T.M. Sampath v. Ministry of Water Resources, the
employees of National Water Development Agency
(NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis and
control of the Ministry of Water Resources claimed the
pensionary benefits on a par with the Central
Government employees. Refusing to allow such
pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on a par
with the Central Government employees, in paragraphs
16 and 17, it was observed and held as under: