Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)885; AIR1996SC1661; JT1996(1)SC641; 1996(1)SCALE624; (1996)2SCC363; [1996]1SCR1118; 1996(1)LC636(SC)
1. What we say in this order shall not only cover the case of the first respondent but shall also regulate the system of recording annual confidential reports prevalent in the U.P. Jal Nigam - the first petitioner herein.2. The first respondent was down graded at a certain point of time to which the Service Tribunal gave a correction. Before the High Court, the petitioners' plea was that down grading entries in confidential reports cannot be termed as adverse entries so as to obligate the Nigam to communicate the same to the employee and attract a representation. This argument was turned down by the High Court, as in its view confidential reports, were assets of the employee, since they weigh to his advantage at the promotional and extensional stages of service. The High Court to justify its view has given an illustration that if an employee legitimately had earned an 'outstanding' report in a particular year which, in a succeeding one, and without his knowledge, is reduced to the leve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : I(1996)ACC551; 1996IIIAD(SC)241; AIR1996SC1664; JT1996(3)SC458; (1995)IIILLJ714SC; 1996(2)SCALE900; (1996)8SCC314; [1996]1SCR1085
ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF ANDHRA PRADESH)Note : This scheme shall not affect ;1. The State transport undertakings of the other states.2. The holders of the existing stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes ;3. The holders of the future stage carriage permits in respect of town service routes having an overlapping of not more than 8 Kms. on the notified route.4. The holders of the existing stage carriage permits in respect of such route/routes which overlap not more than 8 Kms. on the notified route ;5. The permit holders of the existing stage carriage permits on the inter-state routes overlapping the notified route.8. This is the scheme which was relied upon in the High Court and also before us as a sample case. It is a scheme notified Under Section 68-D(2) of the repealed Act and it was approved Under Section 68-D(3) after following the procedure prescribed in Chapter IVA. Section 68C, 68D-(3) and 68-FF are applicable to the scheme. The schemes covered b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)1112; AIR1996SC2373a; I(1996)BC364(SC); JT1996(1)SC685; 1996(1)SCALE660; (1996)7SCC282; [1996]1SCR1106; 1996(1)LC509(SC)
K. Ramaswamy. J.1. Leave granted.2. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Delhi High Court dated March 31, 1995 in Writ Petition No. 5199 of 1993. On September 29,1989, the appellant had issued a Circular letter No. 43/89 stating that in accordance with the instructions of the Government, the Bank had decided to permit the officers, who were otherwise eligible for consideration for promotion but could not complete the rural branch experience for no fault of theirs, to be considered for promotion to Middle Management Grade Scale II [for short, 'M.M.G. Scale - IP] subject to the following conditions:(a) The promoted officers would be straight away posted to rural branches for requisite number of years and under no circumstances would be allowed to shift to other areas before completion of their tenure of rural posting. The concerned officers have already furnished the written undertaking to this effect at the time of interview.(b) The officers, who refuse posting in r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)1003; AIR1996SC1388; JT1996(2)SC28; 1996(1)SCALE648; (1996)2SCC336; [1996]1SCR1095; 1996(1)LC523(SC); (1996)4UPLBEC2949
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. Is the hypothetical claim of the appellant for medical reimbursement valid in the facts and circumstances of this case is the straight question which falls for determination in this appeal.3. The appellant, Surjit Singh (now retired) while posted as a Deputy Superintendent Police, Anandpur Sahib, Distt. Ropar, Punjab developed a heart-condition on 22-12-1987 and that very day went on a short leave extending it uptill 10-1-1988, on medical grounds. It remains unqualified on the record of this case as to what steps the appellant took thereafter to meet his ailment. However, six months later he obtained leave from his superiors from 15-6-1988 to 8-9-1988 and went to England to visit his son. It is the case of the appellant that while in England, he fell ill due to his heart problem and as an emergency case, was admitted in Dudley Road, Hospital Brimingham. After diagnosis he was suggested treatment at a named alternate place. Thus to save himself the appellant, go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)895; AIR1996SC2982; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)203; 1996CriLJ1877; 1996(1)Crimes80(SC); JT1996(1)SC656; 1996(4)KarLJ391; 1996(1)SCALE606; (1996)7SCC440
1. Leave granted. Heard the counsel appearing for the parties.2. The appellant herein filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mau alleging commission of offences under Sections 406 409 420 and 467 IPC by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 ('respondents' for short). The learned Magistrate took cognizance upon the complaint and then recorded the statement of the appellant under Section 200Cr. PC On being satisfied from the complaint, the documents filed therewith and the statement of the appellant that the above offences were made out against the respondents he issued process against them. Aggrieved thereby the respondents filed a petition under Section 482Cr. PC for quashing the complaint and the proceeding arising therefrom which was allowed by the High Court with a finding that the complaint was false, frivolous and vexatious and a direction upon the appellant to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the respondents as costs. Hence this appeal.3. Having perused the impugned judgment in the light...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)994; AIR1996SC3230; [1996(73)FLR1050]; JT1996(2)SC481; (1996)IILLJ807SC; 1996(1)SCALE639; (1996)7SCC499; [1996]1SCR1037; (1996)2UPLBEC836
ORDER1. These appeals raise common questions relating to regularisation of three medical officers (respondents herein) working with the Hindustan Shipyard Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the appellant-corporation').2. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao obtained the M.B.B.S. degree in 1975 and he was appointed as a medical officer in the appellant-corporation on October 29, 1976 on an honorarium of Rs. 600 per month to work in the dispensary in the colony/first aid center in the yard. The said appointment was continued till February 27, 1985 with artificial breaks of one day after each appointment for 89 days. During this period a selection was made for regular appointment on two posts of medical officer in 1980-81. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao was not considered eligible for such selection on the view that for the purpose of eligibility the applicant should have obtained the degree in medicine by 1974 and Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao had obtained his medical degree in the year 1975. He filed a writ petition (W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1998)8SCC699
ORDER1. Petiti Nageswaramma, plaintiff in OS No. 128 of 1974 before the District Munsif 's Court, Kaikalur, is the appellant herein. The defendants in the suit are the respondents. The suit was filed for realisation of an amount of Rs 8140.42 due under a registered mortgage deed executed by Defendants 1 to 4, the respondents herein. The trial court held that the suit is not maintainable. In appeal, the learned District Judge decreed the suit. In second appeal by Defendants 1 to 4, a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reversed the decree and the judgment of the lower appellate court and restored the decree and judgment of the trial court. That is why the plaintiff in the suit has filed this appeal by special leave.2. It is common ground that Defendants 1 to 4 executed a document labelled 'gift' in favour of the 5th defendant. The lower appellate court held that the said deed was valid and came into effect. The High Court on the basis of the evidence especially of PW 6, Vadava...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1996(2)SC422; 1995LabIC1635; (1995)IILLJ711SC; 1996(2)SCALE207; (1996)8SCC43; [1996]1SCR1120; 1996(1)UJ652(SC); (1996)1UPLBEC653; (1996)2SCC363; AIR1996SC1661
Delay Condoned. Leave granted.The appellant-U.P. Jal Nigam was formed under the U.P. Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. Consequentially, the persons working in the Local Self Government Engineering Department of U.P. were transferred to the appellant's administrative control. In exercise of power under Section 97 of the Act, U.P.Jal Nigam Engineers (Public Health Branch) Services Regulations, l978 (for short, 'Regulations') were framed. Rule 5 of the Regulations envisaged that :"5. Keeping into considerationrules 6, 17 and 18, recruitmentfrom the following sources:(1) Asstt. Engineer;A. Direct recruitment on the basisof result of competitiveexamination or as prescribed inpart 5 of the rules forrecruitment.But in case of emergency the Nigamcan made recruitment on the basisof interview also.Note:- Initial recruitment to thepost of Asstt. Engineer will bemade against only temporaryvacancies.(2) Junior Engineers and computersof the former Local Self-Govt.Department and/or in the service ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IAD(SC)1010; AIR1996SC2252; 1996(4)KarLJ297; 1996(1)SCALE584; (1996)8SCC610; 1996(1)LC320(SC)
ORDERSujata V. Manohar, J.1. The property of one Dewan Singh, a common ancestor of the appellants and the respondents, is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal. A genealogy table showing the relationship between the appellants and the respondents is given below:Dewan Singh--------------------------------------------| | | |Rattan Singh Kapoor Singh Boor Singh Gurdit Singh| | | | Dalip singh Lakbhir Singh | --------------------| | Harbans singh Balwant Singh(Defendant No. 1) (Defendant No. 1)| | Shivjit Singh Jasjit Singh(Defendant No. 2) (Defendant No. 3)------------------------------------------------------| | | |Karam Singh Harnam Singh Balbir Singh Amrik Singh(Defendant No. 4) (Plaintiff) | (Plaintiff)--------------------| |Sarasti Devi Janak (daughter)(widow)(Plaintiff) (Plaintiff)2. Dewan Singh left behind four sons, Rattan Singh, Kapoor Singh, Boor Singh and Gurdit Singh. In 1926, one of the sons of Dewan Singh, namely, Boor Singh filed a suit for partition in respect of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)11SCC496
S.C. Agrawal and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ.1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 17-9-1992 passed by the Orissa High Court in writ petition (OJC No. 4057 of 1990) filed by Rangadhar Nayak, Respondent 1 (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”).2. The petitioner was employed as Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the Fertilizer Corporation of India Limited (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant-Corporation”). Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in respect of five charges of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer, after conducting an inquiry into the charges, found that Charges Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 were established. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer the disciplinary authority accepted the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer in respect of Charges Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and by order dated 16-4-1987 the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the sai...
Tag this Judgment!