Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.92 seconds)

Sunaina Sharma vs The State Of Jammu And Kashmir on 26 October, 2017

8. The facts of Sunaina Sharma's case, are however, different from the present case, inasmuch as, according to the facts in Sunaina Sharma's case, the retrospective promotion to the officer was dependent also upon the fact that the person should have worked against that post, and in that view of the matter, the financial benefit was not given with the retrospective effect, in -3- that case. In the aforesaid case there appeared to be latches on the part of the State in giving the promotion to the employee, whereas, in the present case, the promotion was denied to the writ petitioners solely due to the latches of the State Government, and the promotion had been given to the petitioners with retrospective effect, only after the order passed by this Court in WP(S) No.6250 of 2006, and after filing the contempt application for implementation of the order.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 13 - D Gupta - Full Document

Md. Hafij & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 April, 2016

In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly relied upon the decisions in Ranjit Sahay Jamuar's case and Md. Hafiz's case (supra), for holding that in the facts of this case, the respondent writ petitioners were also entitled to get the financial benefits with retrospective effect from which they were promoted to the post.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - J Saran - Full Document
1