Advanced Search Results

Kailash Chandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 14; Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046(2)

Reported in : AIR1961SC1346; [1961(3)FLR379]; (1961)IILLJ639SC; [1962]1SCR374

retention in service on the ground that he was entitled to be retained under Rule 2046/2 of the Railway Establishment Code having been rejected he brought the suit which has given rise to this appeal in the court of

Raghunath NaraIn Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Service

Acts : Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 310; State Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046(2)

Reported in : AIR1953All352

of 55 years of ago.2. Now, our attention has been drawn to a recent change in the State Railway Establishment Code, vol. II. Sub-rule (2) (a) of Rule 2046 of that 'Code lays down that :'A ministerial servant who

Union of India (Uoi) and ors. Vs. Shaik Ali

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Liberalised Pension Rules - Rule 2(2); Constitution of India - Article 14; Railway Pension Rules; Indian Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046

Reported in : AIR1990SC450; [1989(59)FLR752]; JT1989(4)SC123; 1989(2)SCALE845; 1989Supp(2)SCC717; [1989]Supp1SCR456

order dated 25th April, 1986 retiring the railway servant Shaik Ali from service under Rule 2046(h)(ii) of Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume 11-Pension. Rules (hereinaftercalled 'the Cade'). The Union of India feeling aggrieved by the said order has come … that the Divisional Railway Manager (BG) SC Railway, Secunderabad was not competent to pass the impugned order dated 25th April, 1986 retiring the railway servant Shaik Ali from service under Rule 2046(h)(ii) of Indian Railway Establishment Code,

Pran Krishna Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : Service

Acts : Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046(2)

Reported in : AIR1970Cal411

the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents reference has been made to Rule 136 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code Vol. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for the definition of a ministerial service. It also refers … Railway Board by its letter dated the 22nd September, 1969, has confirmed that the benefit of the amended Rule 2046 (2) (b) R-II is not admissible to the T, I. As. who do not come under the category of

Union of India and ors. Vs. Madharam Verma

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : Labour and Industrial

Reported in : (1975)IILLJ160Raj; 1974(7)WLN628

directed the Union of India and others to pass proper orders in accordance with Rule 2046(2)(a) of the Railway Establishment Code (hereinafter referred to as 'R. II') within 6 months. The Union of India and others have come up

Basanta Kumar Pal Vs. Chief Electrical Engineer and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Subject : ConstitutionService

Acts : Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046 and 2046(2); ;Constitution of India - Articles 226, 311 and 311(2)

Reported in : AIR1958Cal657,62CWN765

by Mr. Pal on the appellant's behalf. Ho based his case entirely on Rule 2046 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code or, to be more precise, on Clause 2(a) of that Rule and submitted that if he failed to

B.P. Misra Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through the General Manager, N ...

Court : Allahabad

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 11; Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046(2)

Reported in : AIR1971All104; (1971)ILLJ115All

or 58 years. The relevant provision is to be found in Rule 2046, Sub-rule (2), of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume II, but the quest for what is the correct shape of Sub-rule (2) has brought out strange

Krishan Dayal and ors. Vs. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda H ...

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Subject : ServiceConstitution

Acts : Indian Railway Establishment Code - Rules 1727, 2046 and 2046(2); Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 311

Reported in : AIR1954P& H245; (1955)ILLJ408P& H

of GO.2. On behalf of the petitioners reliance is placed on Rule 2046 (2) (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Vol. II, the relevant portion of which is m the following terms:'2046 (2) (a). A ministerial servant, who

The General Manager, Southern Railway, Madras and anr. Vs. T.M. Parama ...

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Service

Acts : Railway Establishment Code - Rules 2008, 2008(2) and 2046

Reported in : AIR1977SC355; 1977LabIC171; (1976)3SCC430; [1976]3SCR1085; 1976(8)LC484(SC)

58 years which is the normal age of retirement. He claimed the benefit of Rule 2046(b) of the Railway Establishment Code.3. According to Rule 2046(b), a Ministerial Railway Servant was entitled to the higher age of retirement provided, firstly, … age of the 58 years which is the normal age of retirement. He claimed the benefit of Rule 2046(b) of the Railway Establishment Code.3. According to Rule 2046(b), a Ministerial Railway Servant was entitled to the higher

Kailash Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rly. Dept. New-delhi

Court : Allahabad

Subject : Civil

Acts : Constitution of India - Article 133(1); Indian Railway Establishment Code - Rule 2046(2)

Reported in : AIR1959All685

involves an interpretation of Fundamental Rule 56 which is equivalent to Rule 2046 (2) (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code an'd which is applicable to the present case. It reads as follows :--'A ministerial servant, who is not