Judgments - APPLICATION U/s 482
CHIEF CONTROLLING REVENUE AUTHORITY Vs. COSTAL GUJARAT POWER LTD. & ORS.
M/S TECH INVEST INDIA PVT. LTD. THROUGH MAJOR SHAREHOLDER RAJIV GOSAIN Vs. ASSAM POWER AND ELECTRICALS LTD & ORS.
A.N. SACHDEVA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. Vs. MAHARSHI DAYANAND UNIVERSITY,ROHTAK &ANR
Considering the principles enunciated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and that the benefit is not an ex gratia payment but a payment in recognition of past service, in our opinion, discrimination could not have been made between those employees who have been absorbed/allocated are entitled to count their services as qualifying service for the purpose of pension and not those who have been appointed directly. Fact remains that all these employees have served in Punjab University/Kurukshetra University/MD. University without any break. M.D. University, prior to Full Judgment
FAIRGROWTH FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. Vs. CUSTODIAN & ANR.
LAXMI FIBRES LTD. Vs. A.P. INDUSTRIAL DEV. CORPN. LTD. & ORS.
STATE OF U.P. Vs. DEEP NARAIN MISRA & ORS.
M/S. JAYASWAL NECO LTD. Vs. COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAIPUR
M/S. TATA CHEMICALS LTD. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
BALESHWAR DAYAL JAISWAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
INDIAN RARE EARTHS LTD. Vs. UNIQUE BUILDERS LTD.
M/S JAPAN AIRLINES CO.LTD. Vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX,NEW DELHI
M/S. SWASTIKA ENTERPRISES & ANR. Vs. COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, KOLKATA & ORS.
MOHAN SINGH & ORS Vs. THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD & ORS
RAMESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
In normal circumstances when retrospective promotions are effected, all benefits flowing therefrom, including monetary benefits, must be extended to an employee who has been denied promotion earlier. The principle of “no work no pay” would not be attracted where the respondents were in fault in not considering the case of the appellant for promotion and not allowing Full Judgment