Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
SURENDER SINGH Vs. THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA
DTC Vs. SAROOP SINGH(THROUGH LEGAL HEIR AJAY)
PATANJALI SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
D. SAROJAKUMARI Versus R. HELEN THILAKOM & ORS.
The State of Punjab & Another Versus Dharam Pal
The State of Punjab Versus B.K. Dhir
SUSHIL KUMAR KHANNA Vs. BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD.
Chakresh Patel Vs. State of M.P. and others
The Director General Central Reserve Police Force Vs Cpl. Sunil Singh and Ors.
THE UNION OF INDIA & 5 ORS. VS BIJU KALITA DAS
DR. M.N. RAJESH Vs. JAWAHARLAL NEHRU UNIVERSITY & ANR
SURENDER BABBAR Vs. DELHI TRANSCO LTD. & ORS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus S. RAVICHANDRAN & ORS
It is for the employer to decide how many avenues of promotion to give to which branch. It is for the authorities to carry out the cadre review and decide whether the ministerial employees working on the ministerial side should be given more avenues of promotion. The court cannot by its decision change the opinion of expert bodies. Full Judgment
M/S ANIKET COLLEGE OF SOCIAL WORK Vs ASSTT.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
Union of India and Ors. Versus Ex LAC Nallam Shiva
To put it differently, in the fact situation of the present case, it is not possible to hold that the punishment of dismissal was vindictive, unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offence committed by the respondent and especially after the Tribunal has positively concluded that failure of the respondent to communicate either to his unit or to the nearest military stationf or around 1½ years was uncondonable. Ordinarily, the Tribunal ought not to interfere with the order of punishment except Full Judgment