Citation network
Ajit Raizada And Others Vs. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. And Others
Cites for this judgment
- Allahabad High Court
- Feb 21, 2011
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
C) and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh and OrsSearch
-
C) and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. SantSearch
-
2006 (2) SCC 482Search
-
2006(7) SCC 488Search
-
(Devi Charan Saraswat v. StateSearch
-
decided on 06.01.2003 follow an earlier decision in Writ Petition No. 77 of 2000, (Smt. Sushila Chaurasia and another v. HighSearch
-
Department. The similar controversy came before this Court in writ petition no. 77 of 2000 Sheela Chaurasia and others v. HighSearch
-
The next is Writ Petition No. 39154 of 2001 (Chhotey Lal and others v. StateSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
(Mohd. Umar v. StateSearch
-
placed welfare on the Division Bench judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1993 UPLBEC 1756 Union of India and others v. DineshSearch
-
this contention is correct, the case of the petitioner would be similar to the case of Smt. Sushila Chausaria and another v. HighSearch
-
(Devi Charan v. StateSearch
-
(Chhotey Lal v. StateSearch
-
this contention is correct, the case of the petitioner would be similar to the case of Smt. Sushila Chaurasia and another v. HighSearch
-
(Devi Charan v. StateSearch
-
(Subodh Kumar Kaushik v. StateSearch
-
(Sanjay Kumar Pandey v. StateSearch
-
Imtiaz Ahmad v. RegionalSearch
-
Sayed Mohammad Mahfooz v. StateSearch
-
petitioners, sometimes relying on 1991 Rules and sometimes on the Apex Court's decisions in Union of India and others v. DineshSearch
-
(Subodh Kumar Kaushik v. StateSearch
-
and would not be given the benefit of any absorption in the service of the Government. In Union of India and others v. DineshSearch
-
the Supreme Court directed the State Government to work out a proper scheme. In Rajesh Kumar Gaur and others v. UnionSearch
-
of Union of India v. D.KSearch
-
In Writ Petition No. 12537 of 2002 (Rajesh Kumar Gaur and five others v. UnionSearch
-
Union of India v. D.KSearch
-
A similar argument was advanced in this case came to be considered by the Apex Court in State of Orissa and others v. PrasanaSearch
-
In A. Umarani v. RegistrarSearch
-
Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. UmadeviSearch
-
Gurbachan Lal v. RegionalSearch
-
State of U.P. and Ors. v. DeshSearch
-
Sewerage Board v. RanjodhSearch
-
SC and National Institute of Technology and Ors. v. NirajSearch
-
SC, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Chandigarh v. ManmohanSearch
-
See Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors. v. SajalSearch
-
State, CBI v. SashiSearch
-
ITR 8(SC) and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. and Anr. v. SantSearch
-
Union Public Service Commission v. GirishSearch
-
I) APSRTC and others v. P ChandraSearch
-
(Qazi Amaramullah v. DistrictSearch
-
the election work was undertaken the matter came to be considered by a Division Bench in State of U.P. and others v. SanjaySearch
-
State of U.P. v. RajendraSearch
-
(Devi Charan Saraswat v. StateSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial