Court : Karnataka
Reported in : (1968)IILLJ445Kant; (1967)2MysLJ274
Somnath Ayyar, J.1. On 8 August, 1961 respondent 2 who was a chief reporter in the Department of Publicity and Information was promoted by Government temporarily as Assistant Director of Publicity and Information. The petitioner was then a superintendent in that department. He contends that he should have been promoted in preference to respondent 2, and so, he asks us to issue a writ of mandamus directing his promotion with effect from the date on which respondent 2 was promoted. There is also a prayer that we should strike down as amendment made to the cadre and recruitment rules regulating recruitment to posts in the Department of Publicity and Information under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. But Sri Ullal, very properly, does not press that prayer. There is a third prayer for the removal of respondent 2 by quo warranto from the post of an Assistant Director of Publicity and Information. In the counter-affidavit produced on behalf of Government of which the deponent is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant31; AIR1966Mys31; (1967)ILLJ42Kant
ORDER(1) In these two petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the two petitioners have challenged the legality of the order passed by the State fixing the seniority of the second respondent above them in the revised second provisional Inter-state Seniority list and have sought for the issue of a Writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the Government Order dated 20th July 1963 bearing No. GAD 20 IGS. 62 placing the second respondent above Sri C.L. Subba Rao, serial No. 1 in the Provisional Inter-State Seniority list of Assistant Engineers by which it is done.(2) In order to appreciate the arguments addressed before us, it is necessary to set out, a few facts which are almost undisputed. E.V. Seshadri, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1455 of 1963 was appointed as a Surveyor in the Public Works Department of the erstwhile State of Mysore in 1941. He was selected as a Probationary Assistant Engineer in 1945 and was appointed as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1966Kant61; AIR1966Mys61
Hegde, J.(1) These petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution, raise common questions of law. The grievances of the petitioners in these petitions are identical. They challenge the validity of the Order made by the respondent in No. RD. 105 EGO 60 dated 29th May 1961, compulsorily retiring them from service.(2) The petitioners joined the erstwhile State of Hyderabad as clerks. On the eve of the reorganisation of the States on 1-11-1956, the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 807 and 809 of 1962 were serving as Deputy Tahsildars and the petitioner in W.P. No. 808 of 1962 as a Superintendent in the Board of Revenue. At the time of the reorganisation of the States, the petitioners were allotted to the new State of Mysore. Thereafter they were promoted as Tahsildars. The petitioner in W.P. No. 807/62 was promoted as Tahsildar with effect from 21-10-1959, the petitioner in W.P. No. 809/62 from 19-9-1957. On 29-5-1961, the Government made the following Order.'Government of MysoreMysore Govt. Sec...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1978SC1385; [1978(37)FLR70]; (1978)IILLJ185SC; (1978)3SCC11; [1978]3SCR721; 1978(10)LC354(SC)
1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court dated 22nd March, 1968 and arises in the following circumstances.2. The appellant was an employee of the Bangalore Transport Company and entered service as far back as 1944. On 28th September, 1956 the Bangalore Transport Service Act was passed by which the Bangalore Transport Company was taken over by the Government. Nearly a month later, that is on 1st October, 1956, the Company became a department of the Government and at that time the respondent was working as Junior Assistant in the grade of Rs. 75-5-100. On the reorganisation of the States on 1st November, 1956 various employees from other regions were transferred to the Mysore Road Transport Corporation and various units were amalgamated with the Mysore Government Transport Department. In view of the new dispensation it became necessary to bring about a radical change in the pay structure of the employees. Ultimately a settlement was arr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2001(1)SC287; RLW2001(1)SC73; 2000(8)SCALE455; [2000]Supp5SCR743; 2001(1)LC478(SC); (2001)1UPLBEC723
R.C. Lahoti, J.1. The present State of Rajasthan came into being on November 1, 1956 in accordance with the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (hereinafter 'the Act') consisting of the territories mentioned in Section 10 thereof. Sub-section (2) of Section 49 mandates a High Court being established for the new State of Rajasthan as from the appointed day, i.e., November 1, 1956. On October 27, 1956, the President of India in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 51 of the Act, directed Jodhpur to be the principal seat of the new High Court for the State of Rajasthan. Initially the Chief Justice of the State established a temporary bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur but eventually exercising the power conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the Act the President, on January 31, 1977 issued an order which reads as under:In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 51 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 (37 of 1956), the Pres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : AIR1970Kant198; AIR1970Mys198; (1969)2MysLJ517
Kalagate, J. 1. This Revision Petition has been referred to us under the Proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 8 of the Mysore High Court Act, 1961 by Narayana Pai, J., since it involved a question of public importance.2. The question is whether the debt due to the State of Mysore which hereinafter will be referred to as 'the State' from one A.G. Mabon had a priority over the judgment-debt due to the petitioner from the same judgment-debtor. It arrives in this way.3. The State represented by the Additional Director of Industries and Commerce in Mysore, Bangalore, filed O. S, No. 84 of 1955 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore against the defendant A. G. Mabon to recover Rs. 7,580.59 P. the value of Iron materials supplied to him from his factory and obtained a decree against him.4. On January 21, 1963, it filed Execution Case No. 23 of 1963 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, which later on was received in the Court of the First Munsiff, Bangalore, by transfer...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : AIR1962MP59; 1962MPLJ65
Pandey, J. 1. This order shall also govern the Prathat Transport Company (Private) Limited v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bhepal, M. V. no. 67 of 1961, Shri Balwant Regular Motor; Service v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal, M.P. No. 68 of 1961, Messrs. Sajandas and Jivandrai Company v. The Regional Transport Authority, Bhopal M.P, No. 78 of 1961, The Berar Regular Motor Service, Achalput v. The Regional Transport Authority? Bhapal, M. P. No. 79 of 1961, and The Shriram Bus Service (India) Private Ltd. v. The Regional Transport Authority, Indore, M- P. no. 152 of 19.61. 2. These petitions are directed against certain orders passed by the Transport Authorities of the new State of Madhya Pradesh. They were heard together because the. common question involved in all these cases is whether the Regional Transport Authorities of Bhopal and Indore, as constituted after the commencoment at the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, were bound to entertain applications for the renewal o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Madhya Pradesh
Reported in : 1987MPLJ396
K. M. Agrawal, J. 1. In pursuanceof a show cause notice against admission, the respondents put in appearance and on theauthority of Kanti Prasad v. J.N.K.V.Vidyalaya., AIR 1971 Madh Pra 15, raised a preliminary objection (I.A. No. 2484/86) about maintainability of the petition at Gwalior. The objection was first heard by me and brother Rampal Singh, J. in a Division Bench, but instead of deciding it ourselves in a Division Bench, we considered it proper to have the objection decided by a larger Bench in view of its importance and far reaching effect. Accordingly we made a recommendation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench for resolving the objection. This is how this Full Bench has been constituted. 2. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor in the Agriculture College, Gwalior run by the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Jabalpur, (for short, 'the University'). He is aggrieved by his pay fixation and seeks a direction to the University for fixation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1970SC143; (1970)GLR325(SC); (1969)2SCC120; [1970]1SCR244
A.N. Grover, J.1. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by which the order, retiring the appellant from service before he had attained the age of 55 years, had been challenged.2. The appellant had joined the service of the erstwhile State of Junagadh on August 1, 1934. That State merged into the State of Saurashtra on January 20, 1949. The appellant continued to remain in the service of that State having been confirmed as an Executive Engineer on September 24, 1956. On the merger of Saurashtra in the new billingual State of Bombay on November 1, 1956, the appellant was absorbed in the service of the said State. On the bifurcation of the State of Bombay on May 1, 1960, he was assigned to the State of Gujarat and was absorbed as a permanent Executive Engineer there. On October 12, 1961 the State of Gujarat made an order retiring the appellant from the service with effect from January 12, 19...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [2009(121)FLR816]; JT2009(6)SC463; 2009(6)SCALE277; (2009)7SCC647; 2009(5)LC2201(SC)
S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.2. Interpretation and/ or application of various circular letters issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh which have been adopted by the State of Uttarakhand after it was formed in terms of the U.P. State Reorganisation Act is in question in these appeals.3. Two government companies being M/s. Teletronix Ltd. and Kumaon Television Ltd. were the subsidiary companies of Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. The employees of the said government companies were retrenched. The State of Uttar Pradesh took a policy decision to appoint the employees of the said government companies. For the said purpose, it framed rules purported to be in exercise of its power under the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, known as the Uttar Pradesh Absorption of Retrenched Employees of Government of Public Corporations in Government Services Rules, 1991 (for short 'the Rules').4. The term 'retrenched employee' is defined in Rule 2(c) of the Rules as under:(c) 'ret...
Tag this Judgment!