Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR834]; JT1995(2)SC18; (1995)IILLJ679SC; 1995(1)SCALE390; (1995)2SCC570; [1995]1SCR695; 1995(2)SLJ126(SC); 1995(1)LC552(SC)
B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.2. Under the order impugned herein, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has quashed the memo of charges communicated to the respondent-writ petitioner as well as the order appointing the enquiry officer to enquire into those charges. A further direction has been given to the appellants, viz., the State of Punjab and its authorities (respondents in the writ petition) to consider the case of the respondent for promotion according to law. The correctness of the said order is questioned by the Stale of Punjab and its authorities in this appeal.3. The respondent-writ petitioner was the Superintendent of Nabha High Security Jail in the year 1986. On his transfer from the said post, he gave charge of his office on December 26, 1969. On the night intervening lst/2nd January, 1987, certain inmates, said to be terrorists, made an attempt to escape. In that connection, two of the inmates attempting to escape and one jail offici...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC1109; JT1995(2)SC98; 1995LabIC1359; (1995)IILLJ754SC; 1995(1)SCALE402; 1995Supp(3)SCC226; [1995]1SCR676; 1995(2)SLJ183(SC)
ORDERB.P. Jeevan Reddy, J.1. Delay condoned.2. Leave granted. Heard counsel for both the parties.3. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi allowing the Original Application filed by the respondent and declaring that the order dismissing him from service is void and declaring further that he should be deemed to have continued in service.4. The respondent is a civilian employee in the defence services. A disciplinary enquiry was held against him in respect of certain charges. On the basis of the said enquiry, he was dismissed from service by the competent authority cm 22.8.1990. An appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the appellate authority, against which he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. Number of grounds were urged by him in the Original Application filed by him, all of which were refuted and denied by the appellants (respondents in the Original Application) in their counter-affidavit.5. At the time of heari...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)97BOMLR505; JT1995(3)SC470; 1995(1)SCALE670; 1995Supp(2)SCC21; [1995]1SCR682
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. This civil appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra after obtaining special leave to appeal from this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. It seeks to challenge the decision rendered by learned single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Special Civil Application No. 3525 of 1976 decided on 30th September, 1976/lst October, 1976. In order to appreciate the grievance of the appellant-State, it will be necessary to have a glance at a few introductory facts. The respondent-landlord was possessed of various pieces of agricultural lands situated in Malkhed, Taluk Darwha in Yavatmal District of Maharashtra State. He had filed a return of agricultural land holding under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to 'the Act'). It was found that he was holding surplus agricultural land to the extent of 124 acres and 13 guntas. The enquiry conducted by the Competent Authority under the Act showed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR5]; JT1995(2)SC539; (1995)IILLJ646SC; 1995(1)SCALE851; (1995)2SCC530; [1995]1SCR665
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The Government of India in O.M, No. 18(4)-EV/79 dated May 25,1979 introduced in paragraph 3(iii) that half of the dearness pay was treated as pay to compute retirement benefits. That came to be challenged by the. respondent in filing O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The Tribunal in the impugned order dated August 9, 1989 following a judgment of the Bangalore Tribunal declared it to be ultra vires, offending Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus this appeal by special leave.3. The benefit of the O.M. is to facilitate calculation of 10 months' average pay for the purpose of pension. Earlier, only 3/l.Oth of the 10 months average pay was computed for pension. Under the impugned order in para 3(iii) of the O.M. dated May 25, 1979, the computation would be 5/10th i.e. half of the dearness pay for the purpose of computation of pension. In other words, the O.M. is more beneficial for the pensioner rather than earlier computation. Whether the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1995)2GLR1512; JT1997(10)SC547; (1996)IIILLJ330SC; 1995(2)SCALE10; (1995)3SCC120; [1995]1SCR668; 1995(1)LC801(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the Division A Bench of the High Court of Gujarat in LPA No. 161/87 dated November 22, 1993. The appellant admittedly belongs to Bukshi Panch which is one of the Nomadic Tribes, notified as a Scheduled Tribe in the Stale of Gujarat. The Gujarat University had published a notification calling for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Psychology). Initially though the appellant was available, she was not selected. Consequently, the contesting respondent came to be selected and sought to be appointed. The appellant ultimately went to the court. Pending appeal, she was selected and appointed and has now been working as Lecturer (Psychology) in the Gujarat University. The Division Bench of the High Court held that when the selection was made, she was not found to be suitable. The requisite qualifications were not sufficient for appellant's claim to the post.3. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1995SC922; JT1995(1)SC636; 1995LabIC1368; (1995)IILLJ768SC; 1995(1)SCALE354; (1995)3SCC42; [1995]1SCR626; 1995(1)LC648(SC)
ORDERK. Ramaswamy, J.1. Occupational accidents and diseases remain the most appalling human tragedy of modern industry and one of its most serious forms of economic waste. Occupational health hazards and diseases to the workmen employed in asbestos industries are of our concern in this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by way of public interest limitation at the behest of the petitioner, an accredited organisation. At the inception of tiling the writ petition in the year 1986, though it highlighted the lacuna in diverse provisions of law applicable to the asbestos industry, due to orders of this Court passed from time to time, though wide gaps have been bridged by subordinate legislation, yet lot more need to be done. So the petitioner seeks to fill in the yearning gaps and remedial measures for the protection of the health of the workers engaged in mines and asbestos industries with adequate mechanism for and diagnosis and control of the silent killer disease 'a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(70)FLR776]; JT1995(2)SC6; 1995(1)SCALE410; 1995Supp(1)SCC470; [1995]1SCR614; 1995(1)LC626(SC)
K. Ramaswamy, J.1. Leave granted in S.L.P. Nos. 4424, 13245-47, 18110-18113/93, 4064/94, 2363/94, SLP 3172/94 (OCC 24681), 2260, 4223, 2588/94, 20136/93, 4882/94, SLP 3173/94 (CC 25141), 9901, 2428, 11084-11095/94, SLP 3175/94 (OCC 26551), 18784, 19083/94.2. These appeals raise a common question of law whether each of the respondents was liable to be superannuated only on attaining the age of 60 years. All the respondents have been working in various departments of the appellant-State as Draftsman, Senior Draftsman, Architectural Asst. Draftsman, Architectural Draftsman, Planning Assistant, Carpenter, Heavy Vehicle Driver, Mechanic Foreman, Motor Grade Operator, Ferro Printer, Welder, Concrete Mixture Driver, Junior Machineman, Pump Mechanic, Pump Driver- cum-Mechanic, etc. etc. On attaining the age of superannuation of 58 years, when they were sought to be retired, they approached the Administrative Tribunal, Orissa, which in the impugned orders has held that they were workmen and ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(2)ALT15(SC); JT1995(1)SC593; 1995(1)SCALE332a; (1995)2SCC305; [1995]1SCR584
N. Venkatachala, J.1. Having granted leave to appeal sought for in the above Special Leave Petitions directed against the common judgment and decree dated 19.4.1993 rendered in Appeal Nos. 1565 and 2087/91 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad and heard arguments of learned Counsel appearing for the contesting parties in the appeals, we propose to dispose of all these appeals by this common judgment.2. Sri P. Ram Reddy, the appellant in appeals arising out of S.L.P.'s Nos. 13362-63/93 and respondent in appeal arising out of S.L.P. No.. 18202/93, to be referred to hereinafter as the 'claimant', was the owner in possession of dry land of, as large an extent as, 10 acres 17 guntas comprised in survey Nos. 48/24 and 48/26 of Katedhan village lying in the outskirts of Hyderabad. One acre 25 guntas of land out of 5 acres 22 guntas of land in Survey No. 48/24 and 2 acres 15 guntas of land out of 4 acres 35 guntas of land in survey no. 48/26 were the lands included in the total exte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)7SCC81
S. Mohan and; S.B. Majmudar, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The question that arises for our consideration in these cases is, whether amended Rule 50-A of M.P. Cooperative Societies Rules, 1962 which was brought into force by notification dated 23-1-1984 is valid. The question was answered against the State in the impugned judgment because the procedure under Section 95 of the M.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 had not been followed. On the short ground the increase of audit fees of the cooperative society was held to be bad since the rule was not laid on the table of the Legislative Assembly, that procedure being essential the rule will not come into force. Attacking this finding, the State has come up in appeal3. It is urged on behalf of the State that the High Court had not kept in mind the distinction between the case where rules come into force only after approval by the Legislature as against the mere laying of the rule on the table of the Legislative Assembly for purpose of informatio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(2)SC569; (1995)110PLR638; 1995(2)SCALE118; (1995)3SCC263; [1995]1SCR670
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appeals by special leave arise from the judgment and Order dated 14.5.95 and 20.11.92 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana made in Review Application No. 20 CIT of 1993 and CM. 2262 of 1993 and C.R. No. 3019/92 respectively.3. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for short the Act, was published initially on March 31, 1981 acquiring a large extent of land in Gobindpura and other places for extension of military cantonment at Bhatinda. In the determination of compensation, the Division Bench of the High Court in L.P.A. No. 1349/89 and batch ultimately held that :Consequently we venture to make the modification in the order of the learned Single Judge, to the effect that the land falling within a depth of 500 meters on either side of Bhatinda Bibiwala Road shall also assessed at the rate of Rs. 90,000 per acre as its market value....That order appears to have become final. Subsequently the respondents filed an application be...
Tag this Judgment!