Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC215; (1977)4SCC471; [1978]1SCR641
N.L. Untwalia, J.1. This batch of 374 appeals by certificate is from the decision of the High Court of Karnataka given in 374 Writ Petition filed by different persons having various kinds of interest in the Contract Carriages which were taken over by the State of Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Ordinance, 1976 (Karnataka Ordinance No. 7 of 1976) (for brevity, hereinafter, the Ordinance) followed by the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 Karnataka Act No. 21 of 1976) (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). The judgment of the High Court is reported in K. Jayaraj Ballal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors.. The Indian Law Reports (Karnataka) 1976 (Vol. 26), 1478. For the sake . of convenience hereinafter in this judgment, reference to the High Court judgment wherever necessary will be made from the said report.FACTS2. The broad and the common facts of the various cases are in a narrow compass and not in dispute. At the outset, we shall state them mostl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1974SC1373; (1974)2SCC301; 1974(6)LC448(SC)
Dwivedi, J.1. All these appeals now raise a common question of law and are being decided by a common judgment.2. All the appellants were operators of State carriages in the State of Rajasthan. They held regular permits for various routes in the State.3. The State has a Road Transport Corporation. It is called the Raj. State Road Transport Corporation. It was constituted on October 1, 1964 under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950. It has a General Manager.4. Section 19(2)(c) of the aforesaid Act empowers the Corporation to acquire routes for plying buses and to exclude private operators therefrom. In 1956 Parliament inserted Chapter IV A in the Motor Vehicles Act for acquiring routes. Section 68 is to be found in that Chapter. It enables the State Govt. to make rules to carry into effect the provisions of the Chapter. The State of Rajasthan has made certain rules under this section. Rules 3 and 4 are material for our purpose. Rule 3 provides that a scheme under Section 68C of the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2009(4)AWC3503(SC); [2009(121)FLR603]; (2009)IIILLJ177SC; (2009)5MLJ307(SC); RLW2009(1)SC452; 2009(2)SCALE428; (2009)4SCC299:2009AIRSCW2566
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22300 of 2007.2. Reference to this Bench has been made by a Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 22.11.2007 for resolution of a purported conflict in two three-Judge' Bench judgments of this Court in the cases of Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation and Anr. v. Krishna Kant and Ors. : (1995)IILLJ728SC and Rajasthan SRTC and Ors. v. Khadarmal 2006 (1) SCC 59.3. The purported conflict in the aforementioned two decisions centres round the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain suits questioning orders of termination passed by the appellant - Corporation against the respondents herein. The suits were filed by the respondents, inter alia, on the premise that termination of their services was in violation of the principles of natural justice.4. As this Court in this case at this juncture is only required to lay down a principle of law, it is not necessary to state the facts of the matter in detail.5. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC6; JT1987(3)SC617; 1988LabIC213; (1988)IILLJ435SC; 1987(2)SCALE625; (1987)4SCC738; [1988]1SCR228; 1988(1)SLJ90(SC); 1988(1)LC48(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above appeals arise out of three petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India bearing Writ Petition Nos. 1367, 1389 and 1448 of 1973 on the file of the High Court of Madras. The appellant v. Balasubramaniam was the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1389 of 1973 and S. Swaminathan and S. Suruli were the petitioners in the other two writ petitions. All of them were working as Supervisors in the Engineering Subordinate Service of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board'). The Board was established under the Tamil Nadu State Housing Board Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The posts of Assistant Engineers (now called as Assistant Executive Engineers ) in the Engineering Officers Service of the Board were to be filled up either by direct recruitment or by promotion from the cadre of Junior Engineers possessing the qualifications prescribed for a Junior Engineer or from the cadres of Supervisors, Head Dra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1976SC1027; 1976LabIC634; (1976)IILLJ306SC; (1976)2SCC862; 1975(7)LC929(SC)
N.L. Untwalia, J. 1. The common and the only question which falls for determination in all these appeals is whether the respondents, the employees of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, were validly discharged from service by the appellant. The cases have a chequered history. We shall briefly state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 317/71 arising out of Writ Petition No. 9A/1966.2. Respondent No. 1 was recruited as a Conductor on 26-2-1962 by the Divisional Controller, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation, Mysore Division. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for some alleged misconduct or misdemeanour resulting in his dismissal from service by order dated 29-10-1964 made by the Divisional Controller, Mysore Division. The appeal filed by respondent No. 1 before the General Manager at Bangalore was dismissed. He thereupnn, filed a write petition in the Karnataka High Court which was allowed on 16-10-1968.The appellant came up in appeal to this Court. The appeal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1964SC1486; [1964]34CompCas473(SC); [1994]52ITR524(SC); [1964]7SCR17
Gajendragadkar, C.J.1. These four appeals arise from four writ petitions filed by the appellant, the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh against the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income- tax, Hyderabad, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in which it claimed a writ of prohibition restraining them from collecting any tax, or taking any proceedings under the Indian Income-tax Act against them. In its writ petitions, the appellant further claimed an order, writ, or other appropriate direction quashing the assessment orders passed by respondent No. 1 on the 29th February, 1960, for the years 1958-59 and 1959-60. For the first year, a tax of Rs. 13,60,963.86nP. has been imposed for the period January 11, 1958, to March 31, 1958, and for the latter year, a tax of Rs. 34,44,430.48nP. has been levied for the period April 1, 1958, to March 31, 1959. After hearing the parties, the High Court has dismissed the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1998VAD(SC)163; AIR1998SC1747; [1998(79)FLR160]; JT1998(2)SC590; 1998(2)SCALE435; (1998)4SCC3; [1998]2SCR404; 1998(1)LC834(SC); (1998)2UPLBEC1525
A.P. Misra, J.1. The short question for consideration is, whether the appellants, who were all drivers and conductors in the Jammu and Kashmir State Road Transport Corporation, are entitled to the pensionary benefits in terms of Government order dated 3rd October, 1986 when they retired from service of the Corporation prior to 9th June, 1981.2. In the year 1947, the Government Transport Undertaking (hereinafter refereed to as 'Undertaking' was formed in the State of Jammu and Kashmir to render transport services to its people. The appellants were employed as drivers and conductors from the year 1950 onwards. Initially, they were in service with the aforesaid undertaking and later with the Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation'). This corporation was formed in the year 1976. All the appellants served in the State organisations for various terms ranging from 30 to 40 years. On 9th April, 1969 the State Undertaking was made a permanent department of the State...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1977SC1112; [1977(34)FLR224]; (1977)ILLJ425SC; (1977)2SCC355; [1977]2SCR925; 1977(1)SLJ201(SC); 1977(9)LC228(SC)
M.H. Beg, C.J.1. The Mysore State Road Transport Corporation is the appellant by special leave before us. The first respondent, a conductor in the Mysore Govt. Road Transport Department, had petitioned in the High Court under Article 226 against the appellant and the State of Mysore and asked it to quash an order of his dismissal, passed on 25.1.1961, in disciplinary proceedings taken against him at a time when he was a servant of the Mysore Govt. Road Transport Department. The Government Department was abolished on 1.8.1961. But, before this event happened, the Mysore Govt. had sent notices to its employees on 23.6.61. proposing to transfer all those persons who were actually in its service on the date of issue of these notices and had accepted offers of appointment as employees of the corporation. The first respondent, having been already dismissed for misconduct on 25.1.1961, was not the recipient of one these notices to exercise an option.2. In his writ petition, questioning the or...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1968SC464; (1968)IILLJ144SC; [1968]1SCR767
Bachawat, J.1. The respondent was a class III employee in the statistical department of the Mysore State Road Transport Corporation. In October 1961, he was temporarily promoted to act as statistical Superintendent at Hassan. On July 21, 1964, the General Manager of the Corporation issued a notice inviting applications for appointments to class II junior posts of (a) assistant/divisional statisticians and (b) labour welfare officers on a pay of Rs. 220 per month in the pay scale or Rs. 220 - 15 - 400 - EB - 20 - 500 plus the usual dearness and other allowances admissible under the Rules. On August 11 1964, the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court at Mysore claiming that the Corporation had no power to issue the notice and praying for an order quashing it. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the notice. The Corporation has filed this appeal by special leave. For the proper appreciation of the point in issue, it is necessary to read Sections 14, 19(1)(a), 19(1)(...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2004SC3517; 2004(4)ALD71(SC); [2004(102)FLR235]; JT2004(Suppl1)SC250; 2004(4)SCALE824; (2004)6SCC729; 2004(3)SLJ125(SC); (2004)3UPLBEC2300
KAPADIA, J. The civil appeals herein raise a common point of law i.e. fitment of the promotees in the integrated seniority list. The posts of Assistant Traffic Manager (for short "ATM) and Assistant Mechanical Engineer (for short "AME) are Class-I Junior Scale Officers posts. It is the case of the appellants that for several years, due to ban on recruitment, promotions were made from lower feeder posts even in excess of the ratio of 1:1 under A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Recruitment) Regulations, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the recruitment regulations). It is the case of the appellants that whenever direct recruitment was not possible within a short period and when administrative exigencies warranted the filling of posts, like the one in the instant case, promotions were made either on ad hoc or on temporary basis and in course of time they were regularized. M. Subba Reddy, appellant herein, was appointed as a Traffic Apprentice on 10.8.1971 in the Corporation...
Tag this Judgment!