Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.41 seconds)Krishan Dayal And Ors. vs General Manager, Northern Railway, ... on 17 June, 1954
2. This case has come before us in the Division Bench in view of the conflict in the decision of Khosla J. in Krishan Dayal v. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi AIR 1954 Punj 245, and that of Mehar Singh J. in Mangal Dass v. Union of India, 1958-60 Pun, LR 277.
The State Of Bombay vs Saubhagchand M. Doshi on 25 September, 1957
5. Now it is well established that when the conditions of service fix an age of compulsory retirement then the retirement of the employee on attaining that age is in accordance with the terms of service. In such a case it is not necessary to comply with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The reason is that such a termination of services is in accordance with the condition of service and no employee has a right to continue in service after attaining the age of compulsory retirement. (Vide The State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi, (S) AIR 1957 SC 892 and P. L. Dbingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36).
Jai Ram vs Union Of India on 22 January, 1954
Their Lordships of the Supreme Court then proceeded to say that by itself this construction of the rule did not afford any solution of the question involved in that case. Their Lordships held that the plaintiff had voluntarily retired at the age of 55 and therefore he had no grievance in the matter. In view of his voluntary retirement they dismissed the appeal of Jai Ham.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Basantha Kumar Pal vs Chief Electrical Engineer And Ors. on 8 June, 1956
9. Under Rule 2002 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, the power of interpreting the rule is given to the President. In 1932 the word "ordinarily" in this rule was construed by the President. This rule is reproduced in Basanta Kumar Pal v. The Chief Electrical Engineer, AIR 1956 Gal 93. It reads:
Raghunath Narain Mathur vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 28 November, 1952
The next case in point of time is AIR 1954 Punj 245, My learned brother, Khosla J., dealt with this very Rule 2046 and after examining its language and taking other matters into consideration agreed with the conclusions of the Division Bench in Raghunath Narain Mathur's case, AIR 1953 All 352.
1