Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
VEERENNDRA KUMAR DUBEY Vs. CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF & ORS
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 rekha, which if crossed would by itself render the individual concerned undesirable or unworthy of retention in the force. Award of four red ink entries simply pushes the individual concerned into a grey area where Full Judgment
C. CHAKKARAVARTHY & ORS. Vs. TMT. M. SATYAVATHY, I.A.S., & ORS.
The question that fell for consideration therein was whether the practice adopted by the Government of Pondicherry of counting the service of Section Officers/Junior Engineers who have qualified as graduates while in service only from the date they passed the degree or equivalent examination for purposes of promotion to the post of Assistant Engineers under Rule 11(1) of the Government of Pondicherry Assistant Full Judgment
Parmesh Kumar & Another Vs State Of U.P. & 5 Others
AJITHKUMAR P AND ORS Vs. REMIN K R AND ORS
In view of the legal position enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases the conclusion is irresistible that a student who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category cannot be considered to be admitted against seats reserved for reserved category. It is application Full Judgment
ASGER IBRAHIM AMIN Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF INDIA
To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is Full Judgment
DULU DEVI Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
mere passing of an order of dismissal or termination would not be effective unless it is published and communicated to the officer concerned. If the appointing authority passes an order of dismissal, but does not communicate it to the officer concerned, theoretically it is possible that unlike in the case on a judicial order pronounced in Court, the authority may change its mind and decide to modify its order. The order Full Judgment
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Vs. R.K. ZALPURI AND ORS
JAGDISH LAL GAMBHIR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ORS.
Umesh Narain Pandey Vs State Of U.P. & 2 Others
SHRI RAM BAHADUR PANDEY AND ANR. Vs. SHRI RAM DHANI PRASAD, SECRETARY, BHOTIA JAN JATI SEWA SAMITI AND ANR.
RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANR
But the question is, whether dismissal is the only option in such situations where an employee is found unfit for service. We have no doubt in our mind that indiscipline of any sort cannot be tolerated at all in a disciplined force. However, in the factual background of the appellant which we have referred to above, the disciplinary authority or at least the appellate authority, should have considered whether a punishment other than dismissal would have been Full Judgment
RAVINDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P & ORS
KSH.LAKSHAHEB SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS
U.V.MAHADKAR Vs. SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN & ORS.
TAPAS KUMAR MONDAL AND ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
GURDAS SINGH & ORS. ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
STATE OF M.P. Vs. MOHAN LAL
Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In view of the Order dated 15.09.2014 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No. 9675 of 2014 titled as “State of M.P. & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Tiwari”, in our considered opinion, it is a fit case where some compensation should be awarded to the respondent instead of directing the appellant to reinstate Full Judgment