Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 ORS. Vs. DHIRENDRA PAL SINGH
Admittedly, no departmental enquiry was initiated in the present case against the respondent for the misconduct, if any, nor any proceedings drawn as provided in Article 351-A of UP Civil Service Regulations. Learned single Judge of the High Court has observed that the document which is the basis of enquiry and relied upon by the State authorities, copy Full Judgment
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS Vs. JAGJIT SINGH AND ORS
Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the concerned employees (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities, as were Full Judgment
STATE OF H.P & ORS Vs. RAJESH CHANDER SOOD ETC ETC
In our opinion, since the employees of Government companies are not Government servants, they have absolutely no legal right to claim that the Government should pay their salary or that the additional expenditure incurred on account of revision of their pay-scales should be met by the Government. Being employees of the companies, it is the responsibility of the companies to pay them salary and if the company is Full Judgment
MANAGEMENT OF TNSTC LTD Vs. M. CHANDRASEKARAN
In our opinion, the Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in reappreciating the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and in substituting his own judgment to that of the Disciplinary Authority. It was not a case of no legal evidence produced during the enquiry by the Department, in relation to the charges framed against Full Judgment
BRAJENDRA SINGH YAMBEM Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
B.H. KHAWAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Indubitably, if the argument of the appellant was accepted, it would inevitably mean that all appointments made before 28.11.2000 must be protected even though it had not become final. That would also mean that all caste certificates issued to persons belonging to “Koshti” community, as being “Halba” Scheduled Tribe in Maharashtra, prior to November 28, 2000 (the day on which Milind’s case was decided Full Judgment
PEPSU ROADWAYS TRANSPORT CORPN. THROUGH ITS M.D. & ANR Vs. S.K.SHARMA & ORS
The main controversy in this case is whether the claim of the respondents, a group of twenty one employees of PEPSU Roadways that in spite of transfer of that department to the Corporation they continue to be actually Government servants and therefore entitled to retiral benefits instead of CPF is acceptable or not. There may be similar stipulations in case of Full Judgment
MULIN SHARMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS
Shekhar Choudhary Versus Union of India, through Directorate of General Defence Estates, Raksha Sambada Bhawan, Ulaanbaatar Marg, Delhi Cantonment 110010
Om Prakash Dixit Versus State of M.P. & Ors. Dated 14 June 2016
Chetram Meena Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another
Munna V/s State Of Up Thru. Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Civil Secct. Lko. & Ors
Ramsingh Kanwar V/s State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors,
SANJAY KUMAR UPADHYAY Vs. PALAK DHARI YADAV & ORS.
PRAMOD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
SHOBHA RAM RATURI Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.& ORS
Having given our thoughtful consideration to the controversy, we are satisfied, that after the impugned order of retirement dated 31.12.2002 was set aside, the appellant was entitled to all consequential benefits. The fault lies with the respondents in not having utilised the services of the appellant for the period from 1.1.2003 to 31.12.2005. Had the appellant been allowed to continue in service, Full Judgment
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs. R.K. GUPTA & ORS.
BRIJ BIHARI SINGH Vs. BIHAR STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION & ORS.(R-1,4,7)
It is well settled that a person who is required to answer a charge imposed should know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. The delinquent must be given fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to cross-examine the witnesses who prove the charge. The delinquent must also be given a chance to Full Judgment
B. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.
PARVAIZ AHMAD PARRY Vs. STATE OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND ORS
In our view, if a candidate has done B.Sc. in Forestry as one of the major subjects and has also done Masters in the Forestry, i.e., M.Sc.(Forestry) then in the absence of any clarification on such issue, the candidate possessing such higher qualification has to be held to possess the required qualification to apply for the post. Full Judgment