Court : Delhi
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP (C) No.4651/2017 Reserved on :19. h September, 2017 Pronounced on:19. h December, 2017 SHARMILA YADAV ........ Petitioner Through : Mr. Ankur Chibber, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent Through : Mr. Manish Mohan, CGSC with Ms. Shivangi Sinha and Ms. Manisha Saroha, Advocates. + % CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA SANJIV KHANNA, J.Sharmila Yadav, the writ petitioner, has filed the present petition for grant of notional seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Mahila) with effect from 6th July, 2011 with all consequential benefits. She has also prayed for quashing of orders dated 2nd August, 2016 and 8th February, 2017, whereby the respondents have rejected her case for fixation of seniority in the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector (M) with effect from 6th July, 2011.2. The petitioner had joined the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) at the post of Head Constable (M) upon ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
$~6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of Decision:03. 04.2019 W.P.(C) No.925/2017 MONU KUMARI ..... PETITIONER Through Mr.Rishi Vohra, Adv. versus STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS. ..RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Mohit Bhardwaj, Adv. with Mr.Raja Pandit, Adv. or R-1 to 3. Mr.Anuj Aggarwal, Adv. with Mr.G.C. Shyamsundar. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI VIPIN SANGHI, J (ORAL) 1. The present petition assails the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi (Tribunal) in OA No.3809/2013. Vide the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the said Original Application preferred by the petitioner, wherein she had assailed Note II in para 10(D) of the advertisement issued for the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police & Central Armed Police Forces, Assistant Sub-Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force, and Intelligence Officers in Narcotics Control Bureau (Recruitment Advertise...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : (1976)ILLJ222AP
Ramachandra Raju, J.1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings taken under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ' the Act,') The petitioner is a company registered under the Companies Act engaged in the manufacture of cement and having for that purpose a number of factories, one of which is Kistna Cement Works in Guntur District. The writ petition is filed to quash the orders dated 12-1-1974 of the Appellate Authority under the Act, viz., the Regional Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Guntur, the 1st respondent herein, confirming the order of the Controlling Authority under the Act dated 27-8-1973. The 3rd respondent was employed by the petitioner-company on 13-2-1945 and was retired on and with effect from 1-4-1973 on his reaching the age of superannuation which is 60 years of age. The rate of wages drawn by the 3rd respondent at the time of retirement was Rs. 14,37 per day. The 3rd respondent was offered payment of Rs. 5,230.68 towards the amount due to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
CWP No.22538 of 2013 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.22538 of 2013 DATE OF DECISION : 09.10.2013 Kiran Bala ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Ms.Aruna Sachdeva, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not?. 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?. RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J. Petitioner has approached this Court, who is a regular employee of the Haryana Government working as a Social Studies Mistress in Education Department and prays for grant of maternity leave on the birth of her 3rd child as per the provisions contained under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').which was not granted to her. The petitioner had applied for maternity leave for 3rd child on 17.07.2013 before she had actually delivered the child on 08.08.2013. Her grievance is that she had been compelled to take medical leave with...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1829; 1981LabIC1313; (1981)IILLJ314SC; 1981(3)SCALE1275; (1981)4SCC335; [1982]1SCR438; 1981(2)SLJ349(SC)
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.1. Transferred Case No. 3 of 1981 and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners raise common constitutional and legal questions and we propose to decide all these cases by one common judgment. So far as Transferred Case No. 3/81 is concerned, it arises out of writ petition No. 1186/1980 filed by Nergesh Meerza and Ors. Respondent No. 1 (Air India) moved this Court for transfer of the writ petition filed by the petitioners, Nergesh Meerza & Ors in the Bombay High Court to this Court because the constitutional validity of Regulation 46(1)(c) of Air India Employees Service Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'A.I. Regulations') and other questions of law were involved. Another ground taken by the applicant-Air India in the transfer petition was that other writ petitions filed by the Air Hostesses employed by the Indian Airlines Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'I.A.C.') which were pending hearing in this Court involved almost identical reliefs. After h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: October 28, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: November 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2915/2013 CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate W.P.(C) 5259/2013 SATISH KUMAR & OTHERS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Judgment and order dated August 09, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of Original Application No.2538/2011, in so far direction has been issued to the respondents therein i.e. the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2915/2013, to grant Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Child Care Leave, Paternity Leave, Health Card Facility, Transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: October 28, 2013 Judgment Delivered on: November 01, 2013 + W.P.(C) 2915/2013 CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS. Represented by: ..... Respondents Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate W.P.(C) 5259/2013 SATISH KUMAR & OTHERS ..... Petitioners Represented by: Ms.Rashmi Chopra, Advocate versus GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Represented by: Ms.Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.1. Judgment and order dated August 09, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal disposing of Original Application No.2538/2011, in so far direction has been issued to the respondents therein i.e. the writ petitioners of W.P.(C) No.2915/2013, to grant Earned Leave, Medical Leave, Child Care Leave, Paternity Leave, Health Card Facility, Transport...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 13554-13555 OF2022Board of Control for Cricket in India Appellant(s) Versus Regional Director Employees State Insurance Corporation and Anr. Respondent(s) ORDER M.R. SHAH, J.1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 24.06.2022 passed in First Appeal ST No.25980 of 2021 preferred by the appellant the Board of Control for Cricket in India (hereinafter referred to as BCCI) by which the High Court has dismissed the said first appeal, which was filed against the judgment and order passed by the Employees Insurance Court at Bombay dated 09.09.2021, declaring that the BCCI is covered within the meaning of shop as per notification 1 dated 18.09.1978 issued by the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of Section 1(5) of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the ESI Act...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
Reported in : (1982)84BOMLR608
P.B. Sawant, J.1. This is a group of petitions seeking to challenge the Maharashtra Private Security Guards (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as a said Act) and the Scheme viz. the Private Security Guards, (Regulation of Employment & Welfare) Scheme, 1981, deemed to have been prepared by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act. The petitions are filed both by the agencies or agents who hitherto carried on the business of supplying security guards to various employers and also by the employers who engage the security guards on contract basis through such agencies or agents. Petitions Nos. 1204 of 1981, 136(1 of 1981, 1393 of 1981, 1692 of 1981, 1882 of 1981, 75 of 1982, 89 of 1982 and 195 of 1982 are filed by the agencies and Petitions Nos. 420 of 1982, 422 of 1982, 1205 of 1981, 1386 of 1981, 1408 of 1981, 1499 of 1981, 1884 of 1981 and 816 of 1982 are filed by the employers. Som...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1959)2MLJ493
ORDERBalakrishna Ayyar, J.1. Venkatiah, the first respondent, was an employee of the Buckingham and Carnatic Company, Ltd. He was granted six days leave with effect from 10th January, 1957. Allowing for the holidays that followed he should have joined duty on 19th January, 1957. But he did not do so. Nor did he apply for extension of leave as required by the Standing Orders of the Company. Standing Order 8(ii) of the Company provides that any employee who absents himself for eight consecutive working days without leave shall be deemed to have left the Company's service without notice thereby terminating his contract of service. The Standing Order, however, provides that if the employee gives an explanation to the satisfaction of the Management his absence shall be converted into leave without pay or dearness allowance. If it is also proved to the satisfaction of the Management that the absence was due to sickness, then the employee is entitled to have his absence converted into medical...
Tag this Judgment!