Judgments - Superannuation
ASHUTOSH PANDEY Vs. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MPRTC & OTHERS
Law laid down - The Circulars, amendment in the Fundamental Rules regarding age of superannuation of State Government emloyees are not ipso facto applicable to the employees of the Corporation. The fixation of age of superannuation is within the domain of the employer and the Rule Making Authority. Full Judgment
State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Yugal Kishore Sharma
Law Laid Down - The context in which other judgments are rendered interpreting a word appearing in a statute are not relevant for the purpose of the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967. The provisions of the Act, as amended by Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshiki-Ayu) Dwitiya Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, 1998 are required to be interpreted keeping in view the language, context, object and purpose of the Statute in question. The amendments in the Act so as to extend the age is Full Judgment
Dr. (Smt.) Asha Singh Vs. State of M.P. and others
Law Laid Down - (i) The interpretation of the phrase “Government Teacher” as provided under the Madhya Pradesh Shaskiya Sevak (Adhivarshkiya Ayu) Adhiniyam, 1967. Also distinguished the case of Padam Kumar Vs. State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No.13763/2013(s) decided on 30.01.2014, as also Dr. Kanti Lal Sahu and another Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, in W.P. No.5237/2012 decided on 17.01.2013. Full Judgment
Satyanarayan Pandey Vs. The State of M.P. & Others
Law laid down - The statutory rules can be annulled or canceled by adopting the same procedure by which rules were brought into force. Rules cannot be supplanted or canceled by issuing executive instructions. In the event of conflict between a general or a special provision, the special provision must prevail. Full Judgment