Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)682; AIR1996SC3226; [1996(74)FLR1922]; JT1996(5)SC606; 1996LabIC1555; (1996)IILLJ743SC; 1996(3)SCALE491; (1996)8SCC681; [1996]Supp1SCR225; 1996(2)LC249(SC); (1
ORDERS.C. Agrawal, J.1. These applications for directions have been filed in Writ Petitions Nos. 132 of 1984 and 7149-50 of 1982. In the said Writ Petitions filed by the All India Regional Rural Banks Employees Association and the Ail India Gramin Bank Worker's Organisation representing the employees of the Regional Rural Banks (for short 'RRBs'), the petitioners sought parity in emoluments between the employees of RRBs inter se as well as the employees of Nationalised Commercial Banks. The said Writ Petitions were disposed of by this Court by the following order dated September 1, 1987 :We are happy to know that the Central Government had agreed to appoint a National Industrial Tribunal to decide the question relating to pay, salary, other allowances and other benefits payable to the employees of Regional Rural Banks constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The learned counsel for the petitioners also agreed that a reference may be made to the proposed Tribunal. In view o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)437; [1996(74)FLR1927]; JT1996(6)SC221; (1996)IILLJ936SC; 1996(3)SCALE701; (1996)4SCC406; [1996]Supp1SCR247
G.T. Nanavati, J.1. Leave granted.2. The Diocese of Medak is running an institution known as CSI EVA MAIR Technical Institute at Secunderabad. The appellant is the Chairman of the Diocesan Executive Committee and respondent No. 1 is the Principal of the said technical institute. On the basis of the report made by the Socio Economic Board concerned with administration of the institutions within the Diocese of Medak, the Executive Committee resolved on 12.6.95 to appoint an Commission to enquire into the acts of commissions and omissions of Respondent No. 1. It also resolved to suspend Respondent No. 1. Pursuant to that resolution the appellant by an order dated June 12, 1995 suspended Respondent No. 1 pending the enquiry and by letter of the same date a Commission of Enquiry was constituted. The terms of reference were as under:1. Willful insubordination and non-cooperation 2. Leaving headquarter without prior permission or intimation.3. Unauthorised appointment of staff 4. Admissions 5...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IVAD(SC)37; AIR1996SC2173; 1996(85)ELT209(SC); JT1996(4)SC414; 1996LabIC1843; (1996)IILLJ627SC; 1996(3)SCALE730; (1996)9SCC309; [1996]Supp1SCR260; (1996)3UPLBEC1808
ORDERPattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. The impugned direction of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25696 of 1990 is being challenged in the first case and a similar direction of a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court dated 2.4.1993 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28719 of 1992 following the earlier judgment is being assailed in the second case. The question of law involved in both these appeals is one and the same, namely, is the High Court justified in issuing a mandamus to the appellant to make recruitment of the respondents who were in the Select List of the year 1987 even after the expiry of the said list, the list under the Recruitment Rules having the force only for a period of one year from the date of selection.3. The Recruitment/selection to the posts in class III and class IV is made under a Statutory Rule called the Subordinate Officers Clerical staff (Direct Recruitment) Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)737; 1996(2)CTC315; JT1996(4)SC333; 1996(3)SCALE596; (1996)9SCC324; [1996]Supp1SCR268
ORDER1. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 4/1970, IInd Additional District Judge's Court, Bangalore, is the appellant herein. She filed an application under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, P & SC No. 124/1969 for the grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased, Mrs. Primrose Mary Vas (her mother). Mrs. Primrose Mary Vas had executed Ex. P-1, Will dated 19.6.1964. The first defendant in the suit (husband of the testatrix) and the second defendant are the executors of the said Will. The plaintiff culled upon the executors on 6.3 1969 to take out probate. She was not favoured with any reply. On 26.7.1969, M/s. D.A. Costa & D.A. Costa, Advocates informed the plaintiff that the second defendant was unwilling to act as the executor and that the first defendant was intending to contest the Will. It was in these circumstances, the plaintiff as a legatee, prayed for the grant of Letters of Administration of the estate of the deceased, Mrs. Primrose Mary Vas (her mother) w...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)581; AIR1996SC3157; 1996(2)ALD(Cri)201; 1996CriLJ2302; 1996(2)Crimes53(SC); JT1996(6)SC54; 1996(3)SCALE438
ORDERM.K. Mukherjee, J.1. Surajdeo Yadav, the appellant herein, and three others were placed on trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad to answer a common charge under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. Against the appellant a separate charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was also framed. The trial ended with an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Sections 302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and of acquittal in favour of the others. As the appeal presented by the appellant before the High Court was dismissed he has filed the instant appeal, after obtaining special leave.2. According to the prosecution case, on December 31, 1977 at or about 6.30 P.M. when Shamsher Singh, (the decease) was sitting in the Seshan of his house in village Jamhore, within the police station of Aurangabad and gossiping with Balmiki Sharma (PW 7), an employee of Magadh Gramin Bank, 5 or 6 persons suddenly came there and one of them, who was carrying a doubl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1996SC3185; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)922; 1995(1)ALT(Cri)627; 1996CriLJ2441; JT1996(5)SC341; 1996(3)SCALE443
ORDERS.B. Majmudar, J.1. The appellant, Ram Kumar, along with seven other co-accused was tried for the murder of deceased, Balwant Singh at about 9.30 PM on the night of 30th September, 1982 at village Shamgarh near Nilokheri in the State of Punjab. Five Co-accused were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 148 while the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer life imprisonment. The appeal before the High Court failed and in the application for enhancement of sentence, filed by the complainant, the High Court imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the appellant. The rest of the co-accused were acquitted. The appellant having obtained special leave to appeal has preferred this criminal appeal.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Counsel for the respondent-State in support of their respective stands. It must be stated at the outset that there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by both th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996VAD(SC)41; JT1996(4)SC348; 1996(3)SCALE676; (1996)9SCC198; 1996(2)LC256(SC); (1996)3UPLBEC1547
G.N. Ray, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This appeal is directed against that part of the order dated 16.2.1994 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No. 290 of 1994 by which the office order dated 16.2.1994 issued by the Government of India reducing the pay of the appellant on refixation of the pay has been upheld by the Tribunal. The direction for recovery of over payment has however been cancelled by the Tribunal.3. The appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer on 7.1.1963 with effect from 1.1.1973 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 425-700 in the cadre of Junior Engineer as per the recommendation of 3rd Pay Commission. The appellant was appointed as Junior Engineer. Selection Grade, in the scale of Rs. 650-900 with effect from 1.8.1982. On 3.7.1987 under the Central Public works Department (Subordinate Offices) Junior Engineers Grade I and Grade II (Civil and Electrical) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)674; JT1996(4)SC138; 1996(3)SCALE427; (1996)9SCC108; 1996(2)LC133(SC); (1996)3UPLBEC1786
G.N. Ray, J.1. In this application, respondent No. 3 Sri Surender Mohon, has prayed for direction to expunge the remarks made against him in the order dated 21.11.1994 passed in the writ petition filed by Dr. (Mrs.) Neeraj Bala Goswami, For the purpose of appreciating the prayer, some background facts may be reiterated.2. A young soldier Sri Shyamal Goswami of Meerut gave an exemplary display of courage risking his own life for the defence of his motherland during Indo-Chinese war in 1962, when he was in an army detachment in a forward area in Chusul. At the gravest risk of his life, he fought undauntedly against a heavy detachment of Chinese army and by that process became severely wounded. Later on, he was rescued and treated. But his legs had to be amputed. In recognition of his gallantry and exemplary courage and devotion to duty, he was awarded the highest gallantry award for an army personnel 'Mahavir Chakra'. In the year 1992, the Government of U.P. gave Col. Goswami a land meas...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)10SCC531
S.C. Agrawal and; G.T. Nanavati, JJ.1. The respondent was employed as Inspecting Officer (Textiles) in the Department of Supply of the Government of India. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the basis of a charge-sheet dated 27-2-1987. After holding an inquiry into the charges the penalty of compulsory retirement from service with effect from 27-5-1988, was imposed on the respondent by order dated 26-5-1988. The respondent filed an application (OA No. 604 of 1988) challenging the said order of compulsory retirement before the Central Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The said application of the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated 8-8-1991 on the ground that the copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer had not been furnished to the respondent before the disciplinary authority passed the order of punishment. While setting aside the order of punishment the Tribunal gave the following directions:&ldqu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1996IIIAD(SC)573; AIR1996SC1613; 1996(1)ALD(Cri)314; 1997(1)BLJR81; 1996CriLJ2307; 1996(2)Crimes59(SC); JT1996(4)SC140; 1996(3)SCALE430; (1996)9SCC287; [1996]Supp1SCR174
ORDERG.N. Ray, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These appeals arise out of three special leave petitions filed by eight convicted accused each of whom has been awarded death sentence. In the Special Leave Petitions, notice was issued limited only to the question of sentence to be suffered by the said eight convicted appellants namely (1) Raja Ram Yadav son of Chintaman Yadav (2) Babu Ram Yadav son of Jattu Yadav (3) Keswar Yadav alias Ram Keswar Yadav son of Narain Yadav (4) Jag Narain Yadav son of Jattu Yadav (5) Chintaman Yadav son of Vilas Yadav (6) Brahamdeo Yadav son of Moheri Yadav (7) Chander Deep Yadav son of Jattu Yadav and (8) Ram Pravesh Yadav son of Narain Yadav.3. The learned fourth Additional Sessions Judge. Aurangabad by his judgment dated September 30, 1992 convicted Ram Pravesh Yadav, Keswar Yadav, Jag Narain Yadav Chandradeep Yadav, Chintaman Yadav and Brahamdeo Yadav for the offence of murder and awarded death sentence against them. They w...
Tag this Judgment!