Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC434
L.M. Sharma, C.J.,; S. Ranganathan and; N.P. Singh, JJ.1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the State of Himachal Pradesh for setting aside an order of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal) holding that petitioners-respondents, who are the Project Officers, are entitled to the pay scale of Rs 1200-1700, as is allowed to the Project Officers in the State of Punjab. A further direction has been given that petitioner-respondent 1 shall be entitled to the said pay scale with effect from April 1, 1981 and petitioner-respondent 2 with effect from October (sic), 1981, the date of his appointment2. The Tribunal was of the view that the State of Himachal Pradesh invariably followed the Punjab pattern of scales of pay with regard to various categories of employees in the State and as soon as there was any increase in the pay scales of the employees in the State of Punjab, the same automatically became applicable to their counterparts in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC341; 1993CriLJ183; 1993Supp(2)SCC740
S. Mohan and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. The appellant took trial under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short TADA) read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.2. The case of the prosecution is on 27-1-89 a police party headed by ASI Dilbagh Singh consisting of Head Constable Balwant Singly and other police officials was present in the area of Railway crossing Chhebarta. A secret information was received that the appellant was in possession of huge quantity of unlicenced arms and ammunition. A raid was conducted. The accused (appellant) was taken into custody. He made a statement to the effect that he kept concealed one pistol of 9 m.m. bore along with 60 live cartridges of the same bore under bricks lying near the main gate of the house. This statement of the accused was attested by Head Constable Balwant Singh and Chaukidar Shingara Singh. Acting on this statement, the pistol of 9 m.m. bore along with 60 cartridges were recovered after digging ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993CriLJ1646; 1993Supp(2)SCC703
ORDER1. The appellant was charged under Section 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987 (for short TADA).2. The allegations on which he came to be punished under the said section are as under:On 25th August, 1988 when Balkar Sing, ASI with other police officials including Mohinder Singh, ASI was picketing the canal bridge in the area of village Ghariali, the appellant appeared with one 315 bore rifle loaded with a live cartridge and two other live cartridges on his person. He did not have any licence for the possession of the rifle and the cartridges.3. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and he took trial. The Police Officers Baldev Singh PW3 and Mohinder Singh PW 5 deposed to the seizure of the firearm. It is also recorded that on testing the firearm mechanically it was found to be in working order.4. The stand of the appellant was that he was innocent. According to him he was arrested a month and 27 days before the so-called seizure and he w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC392; 1992LabIC2439; (1993)ILLJ308SC; 1992(2)SCALE861; (1992)4SCC719; [1992]Supp2SCR250; 1993(2)SLJ174(SC)
ORDERN.P. Singh, J.1. This appeal has been filed against an order passed by the High Court, on a writ application filed by the petitioner-respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent') quashing the order of termination of the service of the respondent.2. The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Surgical Oncology on 3rd July, 1981. He was to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of his appointment which period could have been extended at the discretion of the competent authority. One of the conditions provided is as follows :-Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render you liable to be discharged from service.Before the expiry of one year, the impugned order of termination was issued on 30th January, 1982 saying :In accordance with the decision of the Governing Council at its meeting held on 28th January, 1982 the services of Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar, Lecturer in Surgical Oncology (on probation), K...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1993Supp(3)SCC738
S. Mohan and; B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of the sentence and conviction of the appellant under Section 5 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act of 1987. The case of the prosecution briefly stated is: On January 1, 1989 ASI Prem Sagar along with H.C. Kamal Dutt and other police officials attached to the police station of Jagraon was going towards the village Dalla. When the party reached near the turning of the road towards village Dalla at about 3 p.m. the appellant was seen coming from the side of the canal bank. On seeing the police party the appellant sat down and pretended to pass urine. This aroused suspicion. When he was apprehended he was found in possession of one .12 bore country-made pistol which was taken from him from the left dub of his pyjama. On unloading the pistol, it was found to contain one live cartridge in its chamber. The recovered pistol and cartridge were taken into possession under a memo. Thereafter an FIR was registered a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC352; 1993(1)ALT19(SC); (1993)103PLR184; 1992(2)SCALE913; (1992)4SCC683; [1992]Supp2SCR257
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. This petition for special leave to appeal arises out of proceedings for eviction initiated by the respondent (landlord) against the petitioner (tenant) under Section 13A of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as amended by Act No. 2 of 1985.2. The proceedings relate to a residential house in Chandigarh which was let out to the petitioner by the respondent. The respondent was initially employed as Accounts Officer with the Finance Department of the Government of Haryana. In 1969, he went on deputation with the Haryana Agricultural University (hereinafter referred to as 'the University'). His services were transferred to the University by the Government of Haryana with effect from November 1, 1975, and while he was employed on the post of Comptroller in the University he retired from service with effect from February 28, 1991. Claiming to be a 'specified landlord' within the meaning of Section 2(hh) of the Act, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC1358; 1993LabIC426; 1993Supp(4)SCC748
ORDER1. We have heard Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner under the 'Supreme Court Senior Advocates Free Legal Aid Scheme' and Shri B.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar.2. The petitioner-Shri Nalini Kant Sinha-retired from service as Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar upon attaining the age of super annotationon 31-1-1979. It was his case that he should have been considered for promotion to the post of Joint Secretary with effect from 31-12-1975 (upon his completion of two years service as Deputy Secretary, or, at any rate, on 14-4-1976 when one of his juniors, Shri Ashutosh Chakraborty was so promoted. It is not disputed that Shri Ashutosh Chakraborthy was a junior and had been so promoted on 14-4-1976. Shri Ashutosh Chakraborthy was paid salary in the higher cadre of Joint Secretary from 14-4-1976 onwards. It is only on 22-4-1988 that the Government of Bihar bestirred itself to correct the position so far as the petitioner was concern...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1993)1MLJ33(SC); 1992(2)SCALE912; (1992)4SCC701
1. Leave granted.2. The appellant K. Gopinathan was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He was taken on deputation in the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI) on 1.2.65. On such deputation he was paid his pay pertaining to the post of his parent office, as modified from time to time. Besides, he was also paid deputation duty allowance. On 1.2.83, he was permanently absorbed and his pay was re-fixed.3. It requires to be stated at this stage that on such absorption his basic pay was reduced from Rs.510/- to Rs.390/-. Therefore, he submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. pointing out the loss caused to him by an incorrect fixation. In this regard he made repeated representations and ultimately on 13th September, 1990 the appellant 'was informed that his pay fixation had been correctly done.4. Aggrieved by that order, he moved Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench by way of Original Application No.967/1990. Before the Tribunal it was c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC216
ORDER1. A Central Sector Scheme known as Rural Functional Literacy Programme was operating in the State of Karnataka. The State of Karnataka set up an Adult Education Council for the purposes of running the Central Sector Programme. The petitioners were employed in the four Rural Functional Literacy Project centers which were running under the control of the Adult Education Council. They were employed on fixed salary as Assistant Project Officers, Supervisors, Office Assistants, Accounts Clerks, Drivers and on other class IV jobs. The petitioners have claimed in this petition that the respondents be directed to absorb them on regular basis and they be treated equally in all respects with other regular employees under the control of the Adult Education Council. Some writ petitions were filed for similar relief in the Karnataka High Court which have been transferred to this Court.2. During the pendency of these writ petitions the Central Sector Scheme which resulted in the employment of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1993SC395; JT1992(6)SC181; 1992(2)SCALE911; 1993Supp(2)SCC220; 1992(2)LC800(SC)
ORDERN.M. Kasliwal, J. 1. This is a tenant's appeal by grant of special leave against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated 16.2.1982.2. The respondent-landlords filed a petition for eviction of the appellant from 4.77 acres of agricultural land on account of default in the payment of rent amounting to Rs. 7,500/-. The case of the landlords was that the appellant was cultivating the land on lease on an yearly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. According to the landlords the rent had not been paid since 1970, but they were claiming the arrears of rent of Rs. 7,500/- till the year ending 1978. The appellant came forward with the plea that the yearly rent was Rs. 2,000/- and not Rs. 3,000/-. The Sub-Collector, Erode held that the rent of Rs. 3,000/- per year was just and proper. The Sub-Collector also held that the tenant was in arrears to the tune of Rs. 7,500/- on the date of petition and committed wilful default in payment of the arrears of rent without any reason and ordered eviction from the...
Tag this Judgment!