Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2084; JT1987(3)SC320; 1987LabIC1669; (1988)ILLJ466SC; 1987(2)SCALE280; (1987)4SCC181
1. Special leave granted.2. Appellant was in employment of the respondent having been recruited on 1.9.1964 and served the employer in various capacities from time to time and was promoted as Unit Manager, Reservation and Ticket Office, from 1.12.1980. Appellant was a member of the Pan American World Airways Employees' Association which was formed in 1965 and came to hold various positions in that union from 1971. When the appellant was promoted as Unit Manager, the Management objected to his continuation as a member of the union. He had been given the option by the management of reverting back to his former post in case he wanted his union association to continue or to continue in the higher post and keep away from the union. Dispute started over this issue and ultimately the appellant was thrown out of employment in terms of letter dated 30th August, 1982 which read thus:In view of the attitude you have adopted in the last several months, it is not in interest of the company to retai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC543a
ORDER 1. The problem that has arisen in this group of cases is the outcome of fusion of ex-cadre Engineers with the regular cadre. At the time such fusion was permitted, government decided that the ex-cadre Engineers would be given the credit of 50 per cent of their ex-cadre service subject to a maximum of five years, whichever is less, for fixing seniority in the cadre. We are told that the persons involved in the ex-cadre side are now about 450. The appeal is by a group of employees of the original cadre who do not want this benefit to be conferred upon ex-cadre Engineers. The writ petitions are by the ex-cadre Engineers who dispute the curtailment of the total period of service for fixing of seniority and conferment of the limited benefit. 2. At the commencement of the hearing of the writ petitions on the earlier occasion, Mr Nariman appeared for the cadre Engineers and pointed out that the writ petitions were barred by the rule of res judicata as Katyani Dayal and some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1988Supp(1)SCC543
ORDER 1. The problem that has arisen in this group of cases is the outcome of fusion of ex-cadre Engineers with the regular cadre. At the time such fusion was permitted, government decided that the ex-cadre Engineers would be given the credit of 50 per cent of their ex-cadre service subject to a maximum of five years, whichever is less, for fixing seniority in the cadre. We are told that the persons involved in the ex-cadre side are now about 450. The appeal is by a group of employees of the original cadre who do not want this benefit to be conferred upon ex-cadre Engineers. The writ petitions are by the ex-cadre Engineers who dispute the curtailment of the total period of service for fixing of seniority and conferment of the limited benefit. 2. At the commencement of the hearing of the writ petitions on the earlier occasion, Mr Nariman appeared for the cadre Engineers and pointed out that the writ petitions were barred by the rule of res judicata as Katyani Dayal and some ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(3)SC384; 1987(2)SCALE306; 1987Supp(1)SCC257; [1987]3SCR972; 1988(1)SLJ170(SC); 1987(2)LC512(SC)
1. These two appeals by special leave, one preferred by the State of U.P. and the other by the Cane Supervisors of the Cane Development Department, U.P., are directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court directing the State Government to merge the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks and Ganna Supervisors into the cadre of Ganna Sahayak in the pay scale of Rs. 400-615 with effect from 1-7-1979.2. In the hierarchy of field officers in the Cane Development Department, U.P., the post of Ganna Gram Sewak is at the bottom. The next higher post is the post of Cane Supervisor. Under the Cane Development (Fourth Class) Service Rules, 1972 framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks are filled by direct recruitment and the minimum qualification prescribed therefor by Rule 9(3) of the said Rules is that a candidate for recruitment in the post of Ganna Gram Sewak must have passed the High School Examination from the Board of High Schools and Intermediat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2104; 1987CriLJ1929; 1987(3)Crimes215(SC); JT1987(3)SC382; 1987(2)SCALE337; (1987)4SCC170; [1987]3SCR968
1. The question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the High Court of Karnataka was justified in directing the Sessions Judge, Bidar to proceed with the trial of Sessions Case No. 23 of 1984 insofar as it relates to the respondent Narsa Reddy and one Vaijinath, accused No. 2, arraigned for having committed alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.2. While issuing notice, we were not satisfied about the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Single Judge which had the effect of splitting up of the trial although the prosecution case against the accused arose out of the same incident and the evidence to be led by the prosecution against them was more or less common. It also seemed to us that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge were to be implemented, the learned Sessions Judge would be constrained to proceed against ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1987SC2034; JT1987(3)SC424; 1987(2)SCALE289; (1987)4SCC671; [1987]3SCR949; 1987(2)LC490(SC)
1. This appeal on a certificate raises a short but an important question as to the Constitutional validity of the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986 (Act No. 26 of 1986) (called shortly 'The Commissionerate Act'). The question is whether the enactment falls within Entry 66 List I or Entry 25 List III-Concurrent List of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh has upheld its validity by holding that the Act falls under the latter Entry, but granted a certificate for leave to appeal to this Court under Article 133(1) of the Constitution.2. The said Act was enacted on the basis of the recommendations of a high power committee constituted by the State Government to study the higher education system in the State of Andhra Pradesh with special reference to its curricula, courses of study, finance and management. The Committee in its report submitted to the Government observed, inter-alia, that there is no proper coordination and aca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(3)SC417; 1987(2)SCALE431; 1987Supp(1)SCC295; [1987]3SCR1138; 1988(1)SLJ207(SC); 1987(2)LC742(SC)
ORDER1. The petitioner who was appointed as a constable in the Haryana Police Force on November 7, 1979 has challenged in this writ petition the order dated August 24, 1982 issued by the Commandant, 2nd Bn. Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban on the ground that the impugned order of removal from service was in effect a penal order and as such the same being made without complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) as well as the Rule 16.24(ix)(b) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and unwarranted and so the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside and the petitioner to be reinstated in service. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner was enrolled as a constable in the Haryana Police Service in November, 1979 and he had been discharging his duties attached to his office duly and properly. The petitioner was a member of an unregistered Haryana Police Association. The said association had been canvassing for improvement in the Ser...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1987(3)SC292; (1987)IILLJ536SC; 1987(2)SCALE245; (1987)4SCC31; [1987]3SCR928; 1987(2)UJ422(SC); (1987)4SCC31
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 3739 of 1985. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). A.K. Goel and Ajit Pudiserry for the Petitioner. B. Datta, Additional Solicitor' General, P.P. Singh and Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The question involved in this case is whether an employee of an autonomous body established under the auspices of the Central Government is entitled to claim the benefit of the period of service rendered by him in a pensionable post under the Central Government prior to his service being absorbed in the autonomous body for computing qualifying service for purposes of pension. The petitioner R.L. Marwaha entered the service of the Central Government on a temporary basis on 4.10.1950 and worked as an Upper Division Clerk in the pay scale of Rs.80-5-120-8-200-10/2-220 in the office of the Settlement Commissioner (Claims Wing) under the Ministry of Rehabilita- tion, Union of India and h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987(2)SCALE1072; 1987Supp(1)SCC610
ORDER1. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case and having heard learned counsel for the parties we are of the opinion that there should be an order directing the transfer of Civil Writ Petition No. 3224 of 1987 pending in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh to this Court. Matter involving similar question (being C.A. No. 123J/37 of 1987) has already been referred to the Constitution Bench. In view of the importance of the question not only in the case of Punjab but other States as well, this is of utmost importance that this matter should be heard as expeditiously as possible. The parties will be at liberty to mention before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for constituting an appropriate Bench for early disposal of this matter. 2. In the meantime in the interest of justice we direct that members who have been disqualified will continue to keep the residential quarters which they have been occupying. Secondly, they will also continue to keep the telephone f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1987Supp(1)SCC470
Order This special leave petition was filed in the year 1984 and was listed for consideration as to grant of leave today, about 38 months after its presentation. We find from the papers produced along with the special leave petition that apart from the dismissal order in limine by the High Court in regard to the application under Article 227 of the Constitution, no orders have been produced. In the absence of the relevant judicial orders which are sought to be assailed, this special leave petition is not complete. When the counsel was confronted with this situation, he wanted time saying that the matter in this case involves serious questions of law and the Government of Uttar Pradesh will be hard hit if the matter is not looked into. If his representation is true, the conduct of the State Government would have been different viz. within 38 months appropriate documents would have been given to the court. We refuse to adjourn the matter and in view of non-availability of relevant ...
Tag this Judgment!