Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995(71)FLR319]; JT1995(4)SC307; 1995LabIC1753; (1996)IIILLJ333SC; 1995(2)SCALE310; (1995)3SCC273; [1995]2SCR386; 1995(3)SLJ237(SC)
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. While the respondent was working as Assistant Statistical Officer, the State had initiated proceedings against him for misconduct in the year 1978 and by order dated 6.12.82 punishment of stoppage of three increments without cumulative effect was imposed. On appeal, it was set aside in August 1984 and re-enquiry was directed. On fresh inquiry, the same punishment was imposed by proceedings dated 6.9.84. For consideration of promotions to the post of Deputy Director during the year 1983-84, the name of the respondent was not included in the approval list as required under Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu Statistics Service Rules (for short, 'the Rules'). The respondent filed O.A. No. 138/91 in the Administrative Tribunal, Madras. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated 16.6.93 allowed the O.A., set aside the order and directed reconsideration with effect from 1983-84. It would appear that subsequently his case was considered and he was promoted with effect from 31.8.88...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1996)1CALLT11(SC); 1995(2)SCALE700; 1995Supp(2)SCC446; [1995]2SCR391
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Admittedly, the respondents were initially appointed as Peons in the Excise Department of the West Bengal Government. Thereafter, their posts were converted into Excise Constables and they continued as Excise Constables. In the year 1970, consequent to the revision of scale of pay, the Government by its Memorandum No. 10606-F dated September 25, 1978, while classifying all the employees as Groups 'A' to 'D', have enumerated in respect of Group 'C that those employees drawing the pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of Rs. 500 but above Rs. 230 would be Group 'C employees. The options have been called for from them including the respondents and they had opted for the above conditions. Consequently, they were drawing a scale of pay above Rs. 230. When the respondents reached the age of superannuation of 58 years, notice of retirement was given to them. On receipt thereof, they approached the High Court of Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996(2)ALT(Cri)208; 1996(2)BLJR1424; 1995(2)SCALE385; 1995Supp(4)SCC256
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] for having been found in possession of four small packets containing brown sugar weighing 870 mg. on August 31, 1990. He was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kozhikode Division and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,0007-(Rupees one lakh) and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of five years. The appeal filed by the appellant against the said conviction and sentence was dismissed by the High Court by Judgment dated September 27, 1991 with the modification that the sentence was reduced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and while retaining the fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- it is directed that in default of payment he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.3. The only ques...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(2)SCALE278; (1995)4SCC136; [1995]2SCR379; 1995(1)LC737(SC)
ORDER1. This petition arises from the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dated December 20, 1993, in Appeal No. 2698/87 and the counter appeal filed by the State. The land to the extent of 69 acres and 25 gunthas situated in Bhongir municipality in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh, was acquired to provide house-sites. The notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1 of 1894 (for short, 'the Act') was published in the district gazette, as amended by the local amendment on March 4, 1985. The possession thereof was taken on March 27, 1985 dispensing with the inquiry under Section 5A. The Land Acquisition Officer (for short, 'the LAO') in his award dated March 27, 1985, determined the compensation to the lands varying between Rs. 6000 to Rs. 10,000 per acre. Though petitioners claimed at the rate of Rs. 40 per sq. yd., on reference under Section 18, the Subordinate Judge, Bhongir, determined the compensation at Rs. 10 per sq. yd., deducted Rs. 3 tow...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC37; (1995)110PLR292; 1995(2)SCALE180; 1995Supp(2)SCC406; [1995]2SCR374
ORDER1. Leave granted2. After Shri R.B. Mehrotra was elevated to the Bench, notices have been sent to the respondents to make alternative arrangements. All the notices have been returned. In some cases the acknowledgements have not been received. Thus, we deem that the notices have been duly served on the respondents. They do not appear to be interested after the law has been settled by this Court and is against them.3. Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short 'the Act'), was published in the State Gazette on 11.12.1974 acquiring large extent of land in Village Phullanwal, Tehsil and District Ludhiana for public purpose. The Collector under Section 11 made his award on 27.9.1976 determining the compensation between Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 26,720 per acre. On reference, by decree dated 23.2.1978, the Addl. Dist. Judge enhanced the compensation varying between Rs. 7,000 and Rs. 40,000 per acre. On further appeal, the Single Judge enhanced the compensation be...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995(2)SCALE354; 1995Supp(2)SCC679; [1995]2SCR377
K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. The notification under Section 4(1) was published on 4-2-1981 for public purpose. The Collector made an award under Section 11 on 22-12-1983. The respondents did not seek for any reference under Section 18. The High Court in the appeal filed by one of the claimants in the same notification by the judgment and decree dated 10-9-1990 enhanced the compensation at Rs 1,75,000 per acre. Thereon the respondents filed the application on 2-1-1991 under Section 28-A seeking reference to the civil court on the basis of the judgment of the High Court. The Collector dismissed the application on 22-1-1992. Thereon the respondents filed revision in the High Court. The High Court in the impugned order dated 14-8-1992 allowed and directed redetermination of the compensation, on the basis of the judgment of the High Court dated 12-9-1990.2. The entire controversy is now covered by judgment of this Court in Babua Ram v. State of U.P.1 In view of the above judgment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : [1995]84CompCas436(SC); 1990(1)Crimes165(SC); [1990]18ITR481(SC); 1995(2)SCALE24; 1995Supp(1)SCC754; 1995(1)LC779(SC)
ORDERB.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellant is the widow of one Vijay Kumar Gupta, who had obtained a Policy for an assured sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the respondent, Life Insurance Corporation of India (hereinafter 'the Corporation'). The Policy was obtained on 1.4.1989 and two yearly premiums had been paid by 1.4.1991. As the third annual premium could not be paid within the grace period of a month thereafter, the Policy lapsed on 1.5.1991. It however so happened that the Policy holder was assassinated on 30.5.1991 at Chandigarh. A claim for the sum assured, alongwith an additional sum equal to the sum assured, was lodged, as the Policy covered 'DAB' (Double Accident Benefit) also. The Corporation paid a sum of Rs. 1,13,9257- on 19.7.1991 which according to it was by way of ex gratia payment, and taking a compassionate view the basic sum assured (Rs. 1 lakh), together with bonus which had accrued (the total of which came to Rs. 1,13,925/-) was paid. The grievance of the appellant is that unde...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1995(3)SC163; 1995(1)SCALE857; 1995Supp(2)SCC83; 1995(1)LC507(SC)
B.L. Hansaria, J.1. The appellant has a grievance that his fundamental right under Article 16 has been infringed by not promoting him in the Indian Administrative Service in time as required by the concerned provisions governing the promotion to that Service. This grievance has taken on aggravated form because of promotion of his juniors.2. The appellant approached Gauhati High Court with the aforesaid grievance which gave rise to Civil Rule No. 256 of 1978. The writ petition stood transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench by operation of Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The Tribunal, instead of going through the merits of the grievance, accepted the preliminary objection raised by the State Government about the delay in filing the application and dismissed the same on that ground. Feeling aggrieved, this appeal has been preferred.3. To do complete justice between the parties, we thought it would be appropriate to examine the merits of the c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC393
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.,; N.P. Singh and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. The High Court of Kerala was approached by Respondent 1, Shri Vidyadhiraja Charitable Society, making a grievance about the actions taken to give affiliation by the three Universities in the State, namely, the Kerala University, the Mahatma Gandhi University and the Calicut University, to some new colleges without following the statutory requirements stipulated by Section 56 of the Kerala University Act and Chapter 24 of the Kerala University First Statutes, 1977. The learned Single Judge of the High Court before whom the matters came in the first instance dealt only with the interlocutory prayer made, which was to restrain the three Universities from giving the proposed affiliation. By order dated 27-9-1994, the learned Single Judge issued an interim direction to the respondents before him not to sanction any new college or grant affiliation to any college which had not complied with the statutory provisions hol...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1995Supp(3)SCC590
J.S. Verma and; Sujata V. Manohar, JJ.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is against an interim order by which the writ petitioner Visheshwar (respondent herein) has been directed to be confirmed on the post of Forest Guard and there is also direction to pay him salary of a regular employee holding that post.3. The main question for decision in the writ petition before the High Court is the status of the writ petitioner on the basis of his claim to the post of Forest Guard, which is yet to be adjudicated. By the interim order the High Court has actually granted the final relief itself without an adjudication on the point in controversy on which the grant of that relief depends. In these circumstances, granting of the final relief in the form of interim relief was wholly unwarranted. The impugned order dated 1-11-1993 has therefore to be set aside. The question of grant of relief claimed in the writ petition would be considered on its merits by the High Court and that relief to which the wr...
Tag this Judgment!