Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1994(5)SC165; 1994(3)SCALE607; 1994Supp(3)SCC340; [1994]Supp2SCR358; 1995(1)SLJ68(SC); (1995)2UPLBEC1047
N. Venkatachala, J.1. In this appeal by special leave directed against an Order dated 26.7.1993 made in Application No. 230 of 1993 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore - 'the Tribunal', the constitutionality of Regulation 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Second Amendment Regulations. 1989 - the IAS Second Amendment Regulations, is raised for our consideration and decision.2. The appellant is a Class-I officer who holds a substantive gazetted post in the Government of Karnataka. He belongs to its non-State Civil Service and has been serving the State in connection with its affairs involving duties comparable in importance and responsibility to that of Class-I officers of the State Civil Service. Since unamended Clause (ii) of sub-regulation (i) of Regulation 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Selection) Regulations, 1956 - 'the IAS Selection Regulations', required a non-state Civil Service Class-I officer to complete 8 y...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)IILLJ694SC; 1995Supp(4)SCC699
ORDERMr. S.C. Agrawal, J.1. Leave granted 2. The respondent, Jagannath Prasad, joined the Heavy Engineering Corporation as Engineer-probationer on February 12, 1964. On completion of the probation period he was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer. Thereafter, he. was promoted as Junior Manager, Assistant Manager and Deputy Manager. While he was working as Deputy Manager he was promoted as Manager by order dated December 12, 1990. The said promotion of the respondent was on probation for a period of 12 months or till the date of his superannuation whichever was earlier. By order dated September 30, 1992 he was reverted back to the post of Deputy Manager with immediate effect. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of reversion the respondent moved a writ petition in the High Court under Article 226 of the constitution. ; The said writ petition was allowed by a Division Bench of the High Court by order dated September 4, 1993 and the order of reversion has been quashed. The High Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC725
M.M. Punchhi and; K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The plaintiff-respondent obtained an order of temporary injunction from the trial court. The appellate court upset it at the instance of the appellant who was a defendant therein. An effort has been made by the plaintiff-respondent to introduce certain documents before the appellate court in order to strengthen his case in support of the order of the trial court. The appellate court declined that prayer and went on to upset the order of the trial court. On being approached by the plaintiff-respondent under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court found fault with the appellate court in declining to take into consideration documents sought to be introduced by the plaintiff to support his case. Not only did the High Court take those documents on record but also went on to examine them and form its own view on merits. It turns out to be that the view of the trial court was preferred by the High Court which led to the up...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC718; 1996(32)ATC1771995(8)SLR118B; 1995(S4)SCC718; 1996SCC(L&S)230
A.M. Ahmadi and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. In exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the President made Rules to amend the Central Water Engineering (Group B) Service Rules, 1964; the amended Rules providing for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on 50 : 50 basis from amongst those holding a degree in Engineering with three years' experience and those possessing a diploma with 7 years' experience of service in the lower grade. The promotion was to be effected by selection on the basis of merit with due regard to seniority from amongst persons employed in the Central Water Commission in the grades of (a) Design Assistant (Engineering) (b) Supervisor and (c) Head Draftsman. The amended Rule provides that 50 per cent of the posts shall be filled by promotion of officers mentioned in sub-rule (1) possessing a degree in Engineering from a recognised University/Institution or equivalent and having rendered not less than three years' regular service in t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC409; (1995)2CALLT1(SC); JT1994(5)SC237; 1994(3)SCALE571; (1994)5SCC398; [1994]Supp2SCR351; (1994)3UPLBEC1861
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. This appeal is by Union of India and some officers of the Central Government attached to the Ministry of Railways and they have felt aggrieved at the judgment and order passed by a Division bench of the Calcutta High Court on an appeal preferred by the respondents against the judgment of a learned single Judge which was rendered in a writ petition filed by the respondents under Article 226 of the Constitution.2. The respondents invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court on payments not having been made to them of the different items of stores supplied to the Eastern Railways. The respondents had made a grievance about the non-payment even to the Union Minister of Railways and certain correspondence which took place between the local M.P. and the Railway Minister and between the Additional Private Secretary to the Minister of railways and Controller of Stores were sought to be relied on in seeking a mandamus for payment of a sum of about rupees hal...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1994(3)ALT30(SC); II(1994)BC561(SC); [1996]85CompCas36(SC); JT1994(5)SC113; 1994(3)SCALE565; (1994)5SCC672; [1994]Supp2SCR338
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. The two appeals arise from the same judgment, the first one by the Housing Board and the second by the State, respondents before the Kerala High Court in O.P. No. 704 of 1982 dated July 26, 1989. The respondent-company had entered into an agreement on May 30, 1977 agreeing that 'first party (respondent-company) is satisfied of their own will that on a consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances and the prevailing conditions Rs. 1100 Rupees eleven hundred only) per cent including all improvements situated on this land will be a fair value and proper price for the property.' 'The first party will accept without protest on their behalf value-compensation at Rs. 1100 (Rupees eleven hundred only) per cent inclusive of solatium and value for all structures and improvements on the property to be acquired and referred to in the schedule hereunder', 'will not dispute the declaration of compensation awarded.' 'Entering into this agreement as it will be for his own be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC593
Kuldip Singh and; S.P. Bharucha, JJ.1. R.D. Valand, respondent in the appeals herein approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay with a prayer that the Administration of Union Territory of Daman and Diu be directed to consider him for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer with effect from 12-8-1977. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Administration to consider the respondent for promotion from the abovesaid date with all consequential benefits. This appeal by the Administration is against the judgment of the Tribunal.2. We may briefly notice the facts. The respondent was holding the post of Section Officer (Junior Engineer). He, along with three other colleagues including one S.V. Joglekar, was reverted to the post of Draftsman, Grade II. S.V. Joglekar challenged his reversion before the Judicial Commissioner, Goa. The petition was allowed and the Commissioner by the judgment dated 12-10-1979 set aside the reversion of Joglekar with all consequential...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1994SC2531; JT1994(5)SC346; 1994(3)SCALE555; (1994)5SCC341; [1994]Supp2SCR319; 1995(1)SLJ226(SC); 1994(2)LC726(SC); (1994)3UPLBEC1882
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. The 'spinal issue' (which is the expression used in the impugned judgment of the Administrative Tribunal) in these appeals is relatable to the interpretation of Rule 4(1) of Demobilised Indian Armed Force Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies) in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Rules 1974, hereinafter, the Rules. The precise point for our consideration is whether a member of armed forces covered by the Rules would get the benefit of period of military service rendered by him for the purpose of his seniority irrespective of the fact that while under military service he did not get any opportunity to enter the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service which such a member had joined after demobilisation.2. To answer the aforesaid question we may not the broad facts pertaining to one of the appellants only he being H.S. Atwal, appellant No. 1, as that would serve our purpose. Atwal had joined the army sometime in 1963 and left it in 1968. He joined the Himachal Pra...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1992(60)ELT674(SC); JT1994(4)SC655; (1995)2MLJ2(SC); 1994(3)SCALE575; (1994)5SCC509; [1994]Supp2SCR281
ORDERThe Government have decided to discontinue the granting/renewal of licences for bars attached to the Indian Made Liquor retail vending shops under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Bar) Rules, 1992 with effect from the excise year commencing from the 1st June, 1993.2. The following Notification will be published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette.NotificationIn exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 17C, 17D, 21 and 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (Tamil Nadu Act X of 1937). The Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby rescinds the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Bar) Rules, 1992, with effect on and from the 1st June, 1993.(By Order of the Governor)K. MalaisamySecretary to Govt.45. The effect of the above GO. is, on and from 1st June, 1993 the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending in Bar) Rules, 1992 came to be rescinded. Both the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court under the impugned judgment have upheld the validity of G.O.Ms. No. 44 dat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(4)SCC637
S.C. Agrawal and; S. Mohan, JJ.1. This appeal arises out of a suit for eviction filed by the respondent in respect of the premises of which he is a tenant. The case of the respondent was that the appellant was inducted as a licensee in the premises on 21-4-1961 and the said licence was terminated on 20-3-1964. It has, however, been found that the appellant was inducted as a sub-tenant on 21-4-1961. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court on the principle of pari delicto for the reason that the sub-tenancy was illegal having been prohibited under Section 15(1) of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). On appeal the learned Single Judge of the High Court decreed the suit and held that although the sub-tenancy in favour of the appellant was prohibited in view of Section 15(1) of the Act the respondent could not be non-suited on the basis of the principle of pari delicto because the respondent was not pla...
Tag this Judgment!