Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
Karnail Singh Versus The General Manager
Vijay Miri Versus State of Chhattisgarh
THE MANAGEMENT OF STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SMITA SHARAD DESHMUKH & ANR.
It is a well-settled principle that the High Court will not re-appreciate the evidence but will only see whether there is evidence in support of the impugned conclusion. The court has to take the evidence as it stands and its only limited jurisdiction is Full Judgment
STATE OF U.P. Vs. PURAN SINGH & ORS.
P. SIVANANDI Vs. RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS.
These appeals raise a narrow question for consideration, namely, whether the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of an officer forms a part of his ‘service record’ and whether it could be ignored for the purposes of his promotion merely on the ground that it was written after some delay. In our opinion, the ACR of an officer forms a part of his service record and he cannot be Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR.
When the attempts of Physically Handicapped candidates of OBC Category and Physically Handicapped candidates of General Category, who appeared in the Civil Services Examination are made equal, and a Physically Handicapped candidate belonging to OBC Category, in addition to 10 years relaxation in age also enjoys 3 years more age relaxation for appearing in the examination, we cannot agree with Full Judgment
STATE OF TRIPURA & ORS. Vs. NIKHIL RANJAN CHAKRABORTY & ORS.
The law is thus clear that a candidate has the right to be considered in the light of the existing rules, namely, “rules in force on the date” the consideration takes place and that there is no rule of absolute application that vacancies must invariably be filled by the law existing on the date when they arose. As against the case of total exclusion and Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs. K.P. SINGH AND ANR.
SECRETARY MAHATAMA GANDHI MISSION & ARN. Vs. BHARTIYA KAMGAR SENA AND ORS
YASH PAL & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Sanjay Sondhi, Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Oth.
Dilip Hedau Versus Chhattisgarh Hastashilp Vikas Board & Oth.
RAM NARESH RAWAT Vs. SRI ASHWINI RAY AND ORS.
From the aforesaid, it follows that though a 'permanent employee' has right to receive pay in the graded pay-scale, at the same time, he would be getting only minimum of the said pay-scale with no increments. It is only the regularisation in service which would entail grant of increments etc. in the pay-scale. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised by Full Judgment
VIJAY SHANKAR MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
More importantly, certain inbuilt safeguards against discharge from service based on four red ink entries have also been prescribed. The first and foremost is an unequivocal declaration that mere award of four red ink entries to an individual does not make his discharge mandatory. This implies that four red ink entries is not some kind of Laxman Full Judgment
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE AND ORS Vs. ABRAR ALI
CEO, KRISHNA DISTRICT COOP. CENTRAL BANK LTD AND ANR Vs. K HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANR
The impugned order is also faulted for the reason that it is not the function of the High Court to impose a particular punishment even in those cases where it was found that penalty awarded by the employer is shockingly disproportionate. In such a case, the matter could, at the best, be remanded to the disciplinary authority for imposition of lesser punishment leaving it to such authority to consider Full Judgment
JORSINGH GOVIND VANJARI Vs. DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, JALGAON DIVI
BINDESHWARI CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 20.05.2008, passed by High Court of Judicature at Patna, whereby Letters Patent Appeal No. 436 of 2000 was disposed of allowing respondent authorities to withhold 50% of gratuity and 50% of pension, of the appellant. It is also nobody’s case that the appellant caused pecuniary loss to the exchequer. In the light of above, we find force in submission of Full Judgment
H.P. STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD Vs. MAHESH DAHIYA
“Hence it has to be held that when the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent employee has a right to receive a copy of the enquiry officer’s report before the disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence of the employee with regard to the charges levelled against him. That Full Judgment