Court cannot sit over the assessment made by the D.P.C. as an appellate authority.
(1996) 1 AD 981 : AIR 1996 SC 3352 : (1996) 1 JT 699 : (1996) 1 SCALE 656 : (1996) 2 SCC 488 : (1996) 1 SCR 491…
Order of termination – Respondent is a temporary appointee; his termination is bad in law – The respondent should be deemed to have been confirmed and directed payment of the wages amounting to six years salary
(1996) 8 AD 737 : (1996) 8 SCALE 441 : (1997) 2 SCC 217 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 463 : (1996) 8 SCR 24 Supp SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIRECTOR,…
Service Law–Compassionate appointment–Family was not found to be financially in indigent condition–Indication as to on the basis of which materials the conclusion was arrived at should be provided.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2819 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Civil Appeal No. 4058 of…
Service Law—Retrial Benefits—Non compliance of order–Order cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2796 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.K. Thakker The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Civil Appeal No. 4108 of 2007…
Service Law—Retrial Benefits—Counting of past service—Respondent not entitled as the requirements of statute dealing with subject not fulfilled.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2780 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.P. Mathur The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Civil Appeal No. 4102 of 2007…
Service Law—Stoppage of increment–Major penalty–In the absence of specific Regulations, withholding of increments with cumulative effect is treated as a major penalty because it has a perpetual effect.
2007(4) LAW HERALD (SC) 2775 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.K. Jain Civil Appeal No. 4041-42…
the High Court set aside the order of termination – Court find that the respondent was given a copy of the order of cancellation of the certificate passed by the Tahsildar, Nowrangpur and he also signed in lieu of the receipt of the copy of the said order. In view of the fact that the petitioner was given a copy of the order of cancellation of certificate the High Court was not justified in holding that the respondent was not confronted with the order of cancellation of certificate. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent then urged that the respondent was denied an opportunity of personal hearing before the disciplinary authority – Appeal allowed.
(2000) 1 LLJ 275 : (1999) 9 SCC 268 : (1999) SCC(L&S) 1228 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LUTHER KONDHPAN —…
Service Law – Appointment – Search-cum- Selection Committee, after scrutinizing qualification and experience of short- Listed candidates, unanimously placed Respondent first in merit list – Acceptance of lesser salary cannot ipso facto conclude that acceptance of position was to abuse authority
(2013) 12 AD 157 : (2014) 1 CompLJ 39 : (2013) 14 JT 563 : (2013) 13 SCALE 442 : (2014) 2 SCC 609 : (2014) 1 SCC(L&S) 433…
High Court was to remit the matter to the Government for Constitution of the DPC to consider his fitment for promotion in later period, in that event, the DPC would go into the merits afresh and find out whether the respondent would be fit for promotion. If he would be found fit and recommendation is made in that behalf, the Government would appoint him on regular basis and he would get seniority only from the date of his promotion
(1997) 10 JT 628 : (1997) 3 SCALE 337 : (1997) 4 SCC 424 : (1997) SCC(L&S) 975 : (1997) 2 SCR 1133 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA STATE OF…
The Respondent would not have any right to get any further advantage in the nature of higher salary or a higher pay scale, especially when nothing from his salary was being deducted on account of his getting pension or perquisites from the earlier employer – The Tribunal was absolutely right in coming to the conclusion that the pay fixation under the order was correct because a mistake was committed in the earlier pay fixation – Appeal stands disposed of.
(2013) 11 AD 499 : (2014) 140 FLR 7 : (2013) 14 JT 203 : (2014) LabIC 1564 : (2014) 1 LLN 17 : (2013) 13 SCALE 393 :…