Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR871]; JT1994(7)SC751; 1994(4)SCALE1121; 1995Supp(1)SCC349a; [1994]Supp6SCR104
N.P. Singh, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appeals on behalf of D.K. Jain, C.P. Taneja and other have been filed for setting aside the judgment of the High Court, dismissing the Writ Petition No. 1277 of 1988 filed on behalf of the said appellants, questioning the validity of the Order of the State Government, counting the period, while the respondents were in military service, during the proclamation of emergency, for the purpose of their seniority. The appellants have also challenged the judgment of the High Court allowing the Writ Petition No. 3184 of 1988, filed on behalf of the respondents, questioning the validity of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public Health Branch), Haryana First Amendment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Amending Rules'). Rule 6 and Rule 9 of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, PWD (Public Health Branch), 1961 were amended retrospectively with effect from 2.6.1961 by the aforesaid Amending Rules. The High Court has held that inspite ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1969P& H147
ORDER1. This is a reference forwarded to this Court by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jullundur, formulating the following questions:--(1) Whether the instant reference, which was registered at No.4 of 1964 by the Labour Court, Rohtak and at No.145 of 1966 by the Labour Court, Jullundur is a 'proceeding' within the meaning of Section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966? (2) Whether Labour Court, Jullundur, or Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, is 'corresponding Court, Tribunal, Authority or Officer' within the meaning of section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act 1966? (3) Whether the reference 'stands transferred' to the Labour Court, Jullundur or Industrial tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh, under Section 93 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, with effect from 1st November, 1966, when that Act came into force?2. The facts of this case are that the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (c) of subsection (1) of Section 10 read with proviso t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC415; 1986LabIC238; (1987)IILLJ25SC; 1986(2)SCALE1051; 1986Supp(1)SCC584; [1987]1SCR584
A.P. Sen, J.1. These petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution assail the constitutional validity of a notification issued by the State Government of Haryana in the Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) dated June 22, 1984 purporting to amend Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964 (for short 'the Class I Rules') with retrospective effect from July 10, 1964 as violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and also ultra vires the State Government by reason of the proviso to Section 82(6) of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. The purport and effect of the impugned notification is to nullify the decision of this Court in A.S. Parmar v. State of Haryana : [1984]2SCR476 , holding that a degree in Engineering was not essential for such promotion. By the impugned notification, a degree in Engineering is made an essential qualification for promotion of Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Branch, a C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1975P& H160
Bal Raj Tuli, J. 1. These two writ petitions (Civil Writs Nos. 266 and 1924 of 1974) will be disposed of by this judgment as they raise a common question of law.2. The facts of C. W. 266 of 1974, briefly stated, are that the petitioner, Dr. Harkishan Singh, his wife and two sons, purchased shop-cum-flat No. 7, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh, from Lt. Col. Surjit Singh Padda by means of a registered sale deed dated October 13, 1971. At that time, Tara Chand Jain, respondent 3, was the tenant of those premises and he attorned as a tenant to the petitioner. The rent of the premises was Rs. 300/- per mensem which he paid from November, 1971 to February, 1972, to the petitioner. The petitioner, his two sons and his wife, terminated the tenancy by issuing a notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act to respondent 3 and, on his failure to vacate the premises, they filed a suit for his ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent and damages on May 12, 1972. The plea raised by respondent 3 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1988P& H281
V. Ramaswami, C.J.1. In C. W. P. 736 of 1987, the petitioners. who are the tenants of the ground floor portion of H. N. 2135, Sector 38-C. Chandigarh. have filed this writ petition praying for quashing of the Notification No. GSR-1287(E) dated December 15, 1986 by which the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. 1966(Act No. 31 of 1966) have extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act. 1983, (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) as in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. This Amendment Act 2 of 1985, which was extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh incorporated Section 13-A in the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act 3 of 1949, which conferred certain special rights in favour of 'specified landlord' which expression means 'a person who is entitled to receive rent in respect of a buildi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1980SC115; 1979LabIC1362; (1979)IILLJ371SC; (1979)4SCC440; [1980]1SCR420
Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J.1. This is a group of nine Writ Petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution raising the questions as to whether the petitioners are employees of the 'Central' Government; if so, whether their conditions of service are governed by rules which apply to temporary employees of the Central Government; and lastly, whether the orders of retrenchment proposed or passed against them are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.2. There are in all 542 petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 359&, 4369, 4423, 4376 and 4391 of 1978. This group consists of Engineers, Overseers, Teachers, Sub-divisional Clerks, Clerks, Act-counts Clerks, Time-keepers, Research Assistants, Store-keepers, Meter Readers, Daughtsmen, Tracers and Steno-typists. In these five Writ Petitions orders of retrenchment were proposed to be passed against the petitioners but those orders have been stayed by this Court during the pendency of the Writ Petitions. In Writ Petition No. 565 of 1979, there...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi45a
Khanna, C.J.1. The following two questions have been referred to the Full bench in pursuance of an order made by Om Parkash and Anmsari, JJ.:-'(1) Whether the employees of the Punjab State Electricity Board are persons serving in connection with the affair of the Punjab State who could be allocated to the successor States under Section 82 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. (2) Whether the employees of the said Board constituted its assets or liabilities which were liable to apportioned between the successor States under sub-sections (3) and (4) of S. 67 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act.' 2. The questions have arisen in a petition under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed by Mohd. Yaqub petitioner on January 3, 1969. The six respondents in the petition are (1) Union of India, (2) Himachal Pradesh Administration, (3) Secretary, Department of Multipurpose Projects and Power, Government of Himachal Pradesh (4) D. C. Tandon, (5) Ramjilal Kaistha and (6) Duni Chand Bhandari. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1977MP116; 1977MPLJ227
Raina, J. 1. The petitioners, who are advocates practising in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, have filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging, inter alia the orders of Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as 'the Chief Justice'), dated 5-2-1976.2. This petition raises an important question of jurisdiction of the High Court at its principal seat vis-a-vis the jurisdiction of the Benches at Indore and Gwalior. The present State of Madhya Pradesh was constituted under Section 9 of the States Reorganization Act, 195,6 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the appointed day, that is, 1-11-1956, comprising of-(a) The territories of the former State of Madhya Pradesh, except the districts of Nagpur, Chanda, Bhandara, Akola Amravati, Yeotmal, Wardha and Buldana; (b) the territories of the former State of Madhya Bharat, except Sunel tappa of Bhanpura tahsil of Mandsaur district;...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1990SC560; JT1989(2)SC483; 1989Supp(1)SCC430; [1989]2SCR629
S. Ranganathan, J.1. This is a batch of appeals and writ petitions challenging the validity of a notification issued on 15-12-1986 by the Central Government under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act (Act of Parliament No. 31 of 1966), hereinafter referred to as 'the Reorganisation Act'. By this notification, the Central Government purported to extend to the Union territory of Chandigarh - hereinafter referred to also as 'Chandigarh' - The provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1985 (Punjab Act 2 of 1985) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1985 Act), as it was in force in the State of Punjab at the date of the notification and subject to the modifications mentioned in the said notification. The Punjab and Haryana High Court by its judgment in Ramesh Birch v. Union , upheld the validity of the above notification and hence the special leave petitions. The writ petitions have been directly filed in this Court challenging the validity of the notification...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1970P& H40
Mehar Singh, C.J.1. This judgment will dispose of two petitions Nos. 2847 and 2399 of 1967 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. In both the petitions Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee, Amritsar, is the petitioner, but in petition No. 2847 of 1967 the second petitioner is Mr. Sajjan Singh Giani. To the two petitions the first three respondents are the same, that is to sav, Mr. Lachhman Singh Gill, Chief Minister, Punjab, the State of Punjab, and Mr. Kartar Singh Giani, who is a member of the Judicial Commission; and in petition No. 2899 of 1967 the fourth respondent is Mr. Sardul Singh, who was appointed a member of the Judicial Commission by Punjab Government Notification No. 462 Gurdwaras, of December 12, 1967.2. There were three members of the Judicial Commission appointed under Section 70 of the Sikh Gurdwaras Act. 1925 (Punjab Act 8 of 1925) -- hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act' --, namely, Mr. Sajjan Singh Giani petitioner, who was also its president, Mr. ...
Tag this Judgment!