Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC2000; JT1992(1)SC48; 1991LabIC2031; 1991(2)SCALE223; 1991Supp(2)SCC1; 1991(2)LC321(SC)
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. Special Leave granted.2. The Central Administrative Tribunal by the judgment under appeal has allowed selection grade of Rs. 1700-2000 to the respondent who is a Sub-Divisional Engineer. He was originally a Junior Engineer (Electrical) in the Central Public Works Department of Government of India. On 16 September 1976, he was selected as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) by the Chandigarh Administration. The post of the Assistant Engineer is also termed Sub-Divisional Engineer. He claimed selection grade admissible to his post under the guidelines issued by the Chandigarh Administration. The relevant extract of the guidelines reads as follows:Selection grade will not be admissible to an officer unless he has completed 15 years service. The service should either be in the basic scale where appointment to the basic scale is from the point of fresh entry into service or as the sum total of the employees service in the basic scale and in the one scale next bel...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC325; 1991(2)SCALE221; (1991)3SCC617
K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant Corporation for covering the factories of the respondents under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (The Act).2. Section 1(4) excludes 'seasonal factory' from the scope of the Act, The 'seasonal factory' is defined under Section 2(12) of the Act which is extracted hereunder:Seasonal factory means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortications of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including our) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes.3. The factories of the respondents were excluded from the operation of the Act since they were declared to be the seasonal factories within the meaning of the above sta...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC129; [1991(63)FLR423]; [1991]3SCR307a; 1991(2)LC596(SC)
ORDERK. Jagannatha Shetty, J.1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant-Corporation for covering the factories of the respondents under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (the Act).2. Section 1(4) excuses 'seasonal factory' from the scope of the Act. The 'seasonal factory' is defined under Section 2(12) of the Act which is extracted hereunder:Seasonal factory means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton, ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortications of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including gur) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes.3. The factories of the respondents were excluded from the operation of the Act since they were declared to be the seasonal factories within the meaning of the abov...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1992(Suppl1)SC108; (1992)3SCC543
K.N. Singh and; P.B. Sawant, JJ.1. Special leave granted in all the petitions.2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Allahabad issuing interim orders directing the provisional admission of the respondent-students to the B.Tech. course of the G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, against the reserved quota of 5 per cent towards sons, daughters and spouses of the employees of the University.3. The State Government of U.P. issued a notification in December 1988 directing that admission of students to the various Engineering Institutions in the State shall be made in order of merit and through a combined Entrance Examination to be conducted by an Admission Committee. The College of Technology, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, was one of the institutions covered by the said notification. According to the Scheme as contained in the notification, the Admission Committee was required to ho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1931; 1991LC1(SC); 1991(55)ELT3(SC); JT1991(3)SC313; 1991(2)SCALE217; 1991Supp(2)SCC86; 1991(2)LC333(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. In all these cases the petitioners have challenged the legality, validity and the constitutionality of the customs duty, auxiliary duty and additional duty on the import of aluminium rods/ingots and the ad hoc exemption order made in favour of Metals and Minerals Trading Corporation (MMTC). The contention of the petitioners is that the notifications granting favourable treatment to MMTC are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In some of the cases an additional ground taken is that the duty should be charged which was applicable on the date when the goods entered the territorial waters of India and not the duty which may be applicable on the date of filing of bill of lading. Both the above points are now covered by the decisions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc etc. : 1989(42)ELT344(SC) and Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. 1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC437
K. Jagannatha Shetty Shetty,; V. Ramaswamy and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.1. The respondent was appointed as the First Registrar of the Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University. The appointment purports to have been made under Section 47 of the University Act. Section 47, inter alia, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 13(1) the first Registrar shall be appointed by the Government for a period not exceeding three years and on such other conditions as they think fit. The section also states that the person appointed as the First Registrar shall retire from office if, during the term of his office, he completes fifty-eight.2. Prior to the respondent's appointment as the First Registrar, he was in teaching staff of the same University. The age of the retirement of the teaching staff of the University is 60 years. The University, however, retired him from the office of the Registrar upon his attaining 58. The High Court has declared that the respondent has a r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1840; 1(1992)BC128(SC); JT1991(3)SC315; 1991LabIC2137; (1992)ILLJ281SC; 1991(2)SCALE219; (1991)3SCC624; [1991]3SCR184
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 9.5.1985. The appellant Anil Kumar Soni was appointed as Assistant Technical Officer in the Punjab Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation'). The appellant was confirmed as Assistant Technical Officer (Textiles) on 14.7.1976. The appellant then applied for the post of Assistant Manager which was to be filled up by direct recruitment. The appellant was selected and appointed as Assistant Manager on probation on 26.5.1980. The period of probation of the appellant was extended from time to time and ultimately the Corporation vide its order dated 11th May, 1984 terminated the service of the appellant in exercise of the powers conferred by Regulation 19(2) of the Punjab Financial Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1961. The appellant aggrieved against the order the termination filed a writ petition which came to be dismissed by the High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1991(3)SC198; (1992)IILLJ53bSC; 1991(2)SCALE150; (1991)3SCC655; [1991]3SCR189a
Ray, J.; [Concurring]1. I have had the advantage of deciphering the two draft judgments prepared by my learned brothers Shetty and Verma, JJ. I agree with the conclusions arrived at by my learned brother Shetty, J. Yet considering the great importance of the questions involved in this matter, I deem it just and proper to consider the same and to express my own views.2. Three very important questions fall for decision in this case. First of all whether a Judge of the Supreme Court or a Judge of a High Court is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act interprets a public servant as meaning a public servant as defined in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code i.e. Act 45 of 1860. Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code states that a public servant denotes a person falling under any of the description mentioned therein:Third-Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1992SC212; 1992Supp(3)SCC26
ORDER1. The appellant claims occupancy right under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. His claim has beep allowed by the Land Tribunal, but the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside by the Karnataka High Court. The decision of the High Court has been challenged in this appeal.2. The question for consideration is whether the High Court after setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal ought to have remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. In fact, this was the only question that was urged in the appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench has rejected that request on the ground that the occupancy right claimed by the appellant was not one arising out of agrarian relations. This conclusion seems to have been based on the pleadings before the High Court. It is reflected from the following observations of the Division Bench of the High Court : AIR1977Kant137 :In our opinion, the dispute between the parties is not one arising out of agrari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1991SC1886; 1991(2)BLJR1187; JT1991(3)SC306; 1991(2)SCALE127; (1991)3SCC554; [1991]3SCR149
ORDERL.M. Sharma, J.1. By these three petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioners who are foreign nationals, have challenged the order dated 8.7.1987 whereby their prayer for further extension of the period of their stay in India was rejected and they were asked to leave the country by the 31st July, 1987. Mr. Louis De Raedt, petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1410 of 1987, came to India in 1937 on a Belgium passport with British visa and Mr. B.E. Getter, the petitioner in W.P. (Crl.) No. 528 of 1987 in 1948 on an American passport and both have been engaged in Christian missionary work. The petitioner in W.P. (C) No. 1372 of 1987, Mrs. S.J. Getter is Mr. B.E. Getter's wife. Mr. Verghese, the learned Counsel, who appeared for the three petitioners, referred to the facts in W.P. (C) No. 1410 of 1987 and stated that the cases of the other two petitioners are similar and they are entitled to the same relief as Mr. Louis De Raedt.2. According to his case, Mr. louis De Raedt has...
Tag this Judgment!