Judgments - Service Law / Matter , Provident Funds
MADRAS INST.OF DEV. STUDIES & ANR. Vs. K. SIVASUBRAMANIYAN & ORS.
SAROJ KUMAR Vs. U.O.I & ORS.
K.K.GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT & 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
STATE OF U.P. Vs. DEEP NARAIN MISRA & 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
RAJESHWAR BABURAO BONE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR
KRISHAN & ORS Vs THE MANAGEMENT OF THE AIR FORCE SCHOOL
RAJESH KUMAR GANDHI Vs SHRIRAM INSTITUTE FOR INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
TALUKDAR SINGH Vs. TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD
RAKHIAL GRAM PANCHAYAT Vs. JAGATSINH ADESINH JHALA
PRABHU DAYAL KHANDELWAL Vs. CHAIRMAN, U.P.S.C. & ORS.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs. BALWANT SINGH
Pratibha Tiwari Vs The State of Chhattisgarh
SURENDRA KUMAR & ORS Vs. GREATER NOIDA IND. DEVELOPMENT AUTH.&ORS
The main issue that arises for consideration is whether the policy decision extending the benefit of regularisation to contractual employees against 60% vacant posts will be deemed to regularise the services of the appellants from the retrospective date, that is, 20.11.2002, when the said posts were first advertised. The appellants were Full Judgment
PREM RAM Vs. M.D. UTTARAKHAND PEY JAL & NIRM.NIGM&ORS
If engagement in a work- charged establishment rest on a criterion, no better than the absolute discretion of the authority engaging them or the fortuitous circumstances of a vacancy or need in a work-charged establishment, then, there is indeed no difference between a daily-wager on the one hand and work-charged employees on the other. No distinction can resultantly be Full Judgment