Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1981SC1990; 1981LabIC1568; (1981)IILLJ433SC; 1981(3)SCALE1445; (1981)4SCC130; [1982]1SCR665; 1981(2)SLJ280(SC)
A.P. Sen, J.1. In this appeal, by special leave, the question for consideration is whether there was denial of 'fair and equitable treatment' within the meaning of Sub-section (5) of Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter called 'the Act') in the matter of determination of relative seniority and equation of posts as between the Assistant Sales Tax Officers (abbreviated as ASTOs) from the former States of Madhya Pradesh and Hyderabad and Sales Tax Inspectors (abbreviated as STIs) from the former State of Bombay, who were allocated to the new State of Bombay, and their right to promotion to the posts of Sales Tax Officers (abbreviated as STOs) Grade III. 2. The High Court by its judgment, on a writ petition filed by Respondents 1 to 5, who were STIs of the State of Bombay and passed the prescribed departmental examination for promotion as STOs Gr. III, has struck down the various resolutions and orders passed by the State Government from time to time relating to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : AIR1969Delhi142; 5(1969)DLT82; ILR1969Delhi19
Dua, C.J. 1. This case has been placed before us pursuant to my order of reference dated 14-11-1967 which may be read as a part of the present order. The only question requiring authoritative determination is whether the amendment made in Rule 1 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Punjab High Court is still operative in the Courts of the District Judges and Subordinate Judges of 1st Class in the Union Territory of Delhi The submission eloquently pressed by Shri Sehgal on behalf of the defendant-petitioner is that under section 7 of the Delhi High Court Act No. 26 of 1966, the Delhi High Court alone has the power to make rules and orders with respect to practice and procedure and all rules made by the Punjab High Court with respect to such practice and procedure in relation to the subordinate Courts at Delhi must cease to have effect as soon as the Punjab High Court ceased to have jurisdiction over such subordinate Courts. 2. In support of his submission. Shri Sehgal has c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai
P.B. Majmudar, J.1. Whether it is open to the department to prescribe a certain percentage of quota between degree holders and diploma holders in the matter of promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the Assistant Engineer is the question which is raised in the present petition at the instance of the petitioners.2. The petitioners are working as Junior Engineers in the Electrical Department of the Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu. The petitioners are the diploma holders in Electrical Engineering and are serving with respondent No. 1 since 1983. The post of Junior Engineers comprises of diploma holders as well as degree holders. The graduate engineers are those who have attended a five year Degree Course in Engineering and obtained the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (B.E.) whereas diploma holders are those who have attended a three year diploma course in Engineering.3. So far as the post of Junior Engineer is concerned, the same is Assistant Engineer (E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1967Kant6; AIR1967Mys6
Hegde, J.1. A common question of law, namely, whether the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. Bangalore to be hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, (Respondent 1 in both the Writ Petitions) had jurisdiction to entertain the appeals in these cases, arises in these Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. In both these petitions, the only relief proved for is that this Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Prohibition, prohibiting the Tribunal from hearing the appeal mentioned therein.2. Before proceeding to consider the question of law arising for decision in these cases, it is necessary to state briefly the material facts of these cases.3. The petitioner in W. P. No. 458/65. made an application on 19-6-1950 requesting the Regional Transport Authority, Kolar, to alter the permit held by him, which authorised him io operate a service from Punganur to Hebbani border via Srinivasapur, Yeldur, and Mulbagal to one permitting him to operate his service from Punganur to Bangal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1964Kant229; AIR1964Mys229; (1964)1MysLJ212
Kalagate, J. 1. The petitioner who is a Commercial Tax Officer has presented this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution requesting this Court (1) to quash the Notification No. FD 105 CSE 60, dated the 19th November 1962, issued by Respondent 1, by issuing a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction; and (2) to direct Respondent-1 to promote the petitioner as Inspector of Commercial Taxes with, effect from 19-11-1962 by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or? direction as this court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.2. The petitioner states that he is a double graduate of the University of Bombay and was appointed on 24th April 1946 as Sales Tax Inspector in the Sales Tax Department of the erstwhile State of Bombay. On and March 1953 he was promoted as Sales Tax Officer, Grade in, on the scale of pay of Rs. 250-15-400-EB-20 500.3. In the Sales Tax Department of the former State of Bombay, though there were tw...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Reported in : 2006(1)ALD145
C.V. Ramulu, J.1. The only substantial question of law that falls for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the appellate Court was justified in refusing to consider the validity of G.O. Ms. No. 636, General Administration (Accommodation-A) Department, dated 29-12-1983 on the premise that the said issue has already been decided by a Full Bench of this Court in M. Sreeramulu v. Tahera Yousuf Kadri : 2000(3)ALD173 (FB), and in not examining the validity of the said G.O. in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya v. State of Maharashtra : AIR1998SC602 .2. A few facts, which are relevant, may be noticed as under:3. The appellant is the defendant/ tenant. Respondent No. 1/landlord filed a suit in O.S. No. 3756 of 1997 on the file of the learned XIX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for arrears of rent and for future mesne profits. It was the case respondent-plainti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1992MP281; 1993(0)MPLJ411
ORDERShacheendra Dwivedi, J.1. This petition under Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code is filed by defendant/wife, seeking transfer of Civil Suit No. 22-A/88, filed by non-petitioner under Section 12(1)(b) and Section 13(1)(ia) and (iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending in the Court of 5th Additional District Judge, Bhopal, to an appropriate Court at Gwalior.2. Facts leading to the filing of this petition may be briefly stated. The petitioner is a legally wedded wife of the non-petitioner, and their marriage took place at Bhopal on 28-11-85. The petitioner and the non-petitioner are stated to have lived together till 18-6-86. On 19-6-86, the petitioner delivered a female child, now named Dolly.3. In the above suit, a written statement has been filed, and is being contested by the petitioner. In that suit an application under Section 26 of the, Hindu Marriage Act for taking the custody of Dolly, the minordaughter, was moved by the non-petitioner, which was dismissed on 27-6-90, by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : AIR1974P& H140
B.S. Dhillon, J.1. This judgment will dispose of Civil Writs Nos. 708, 791, 792, 893, 900, 907, 908, 1022, 1224, 1225 and 1226 of 1972. Since in all these writ petitions the scheme finally approved by the State Government under Section 68-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939(hereinafter referred to as the Act), Annex. 'B' with this writ petition, is being impugned on the same and similar grounds, therefore, all these writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment.2. The facts and the grounds as mentioned in Civil Writ No. 708 of 1972, may only be mentioned because the facts and ground of challenge in all these writ petitions are the same. All the petitioners are existing transport operators. The Patiala Bus (Sirhind) Private Limited, Sirhind, petitioner in Civil Writ No. 708 of 1972, with its head quarters at Sirhind, is holding State Carriage permits issued by the State Transport Commissioner Punjab on various routes. This Company was also operating on Ludhiana Ambala Cantt. a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1985SC69; [1985(50)FLR9]; 1985LabIC570; (1985)ILLJ85SC; 1984(2)SCALE632; (1985)1SCC134; [1985]1SCR1040; 1985(17)LC269(SC)
D.A. Desai, J.1. Appellant joined service as a Clerk in the Civil Supplies Department of the erstwhile Patiala and East Punjab States Union ('PEPSU' for short) on September 2, 1949. He was a temporary employee and he was discharged from service on September 30, 1953. On February 2,2, 1954, he was again recruited as a clerk in the Consolidation department of PEPSU. In course of time, he was promoted as senior clerk and came to be allocated to Punjab State on the merger of PEPSU with erstwhile Punjab State. The Deputy Commissioner of Bhatinda transferred the appellant and posted him as Assistant in his office after obtaining concurrence of the Subordinate Service Selection Board. Punjab with effect from January 1,1962. On the reorganisation of Punjab State in 1966, the appellant came to be allocated to Punjab State. After declaration of national emergency, the Governor of Punjab in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and all other powers enab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1972)ILLJ406Kant; (1971)2MysLJ396
ORDERPer A. Narayana Pai, C.J.1. This is a petition under Art. 226 by two officers of the Public Works Department, allottees from the erstwhile State of Mysore to new State of Mysore under the States Reorganisation Act, praying for the issue of appropriate writes for the quashing of the equation of posts made for purposes of integration falling within the category of Junior Engineers and for re-doing the same in accordance with law. 2. The final inter-State seniority list dated the 26th of December, 1968 incorporating the impugned equation sets out the same at the end as category II. In the said category are set out the several posts which are equated for purposes of integrating service personal coming from different integrating areas and setting their inter-State seniority. The posts listed as equated are the following : 'Supervisor, Mysore (Rs. 116-200), Sub-Engineer, Mysore (Rs. 150-200), Overseer, Mysore (Rs. 100-150), Graduate Overseer, Bombay (Rs. 140-270), Permanent and Temporar...
Tag this Judgment!