Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)9SCC609
J.S. Verma and; B.N. Kirpal, JJ.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General informs us that the Core Group has indicated that the period of three months would be adequate for completion of the task by them as required by the earlier order dated 12-2-1997. Accordingly, we request the Core Group to complete the task as expeditiously as possible and latest by the end of 31-5-1997. The learned Additional Solicitor General will give this intimation to the Core Group through its Convenor2. We are also informed by the learned counsel that the particulars of the existing stock of the drugs manufactured prior to 17-12-1996 as required by the earlier order dated 12-2-1997 have been furnished by the manufacturers and the same is in the process of certification by the competent authorities. The learned Additional Solicitor General also states on instructions that there is no objection by the authorities concerned to the export of fixed dose combinations of Analgin known by the brand names - Baralg...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC2038; 2002(81)ECC666; 1997(92)ELT14(SC); JT1997(3)SC63; 1997(2)SCALE376; (1997)5SCC752; [1997]2SCR445
ORDERK.T. Thomas, J.1. The question involved in this appeal is whether tyres of the size 1800 and above manufactured for fitment to heavy moving vehicles such as dumpers and earth movers are exigible to excise duty as 'tyres for motor vehicles'. This appeal by special leave is in challenge of the order passed by the Central Government in exercise of their revisional powers under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 (for short 'the Act') decided against the appellant holding that such tyres are also 'tyres for motor-vehicles' as envisaged in Item No. 16 of the Central Excise Tariff (1st Schedule to the Act). 2. Appellant company has been manufacturing tyres and tubes of varying sizes which are excisable under Item No. 16 of the Central Excise Tariff. The said item, during the relevant period, contains the following descriptions :Item No. 16 - TYRES------------------------------------------------------------- Item No. Tariff Description Rate of Duty --------------------...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC847; (1997)11SCC217
1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties; 3. The short question which arises for our consideration is whether the respondent who is a retired Medical Officer of the Railway is entitled to Complimentary Passes. Such claim of the respondent was not accepted by the Railway Administration on the ground that the rules relating to grant of Complimentary Passes after superannuation require that the concerned employee has rendered minimum 20 years' of actual service. Admittedly, the respondent has not rendered 20 years' actual service. The respondent has been given the benefit of superannuation pension by extending the length of service on the basis of Rule 2423-A (C.S.R. 404-B). It appears to us that the benefit of such rule for superannuation pension is confined to case of superannuation pension and not for the purpose of extending the period of actual service for getting complimentary passes after retirement on superannuation.4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC500; (1997)IILLJ26SC; RLW1997(1)SC141; 1997(2)SCALE569; (1997)4SCC565; [1997]2SCR472
ORDER1. The petitioner was imputed with the charges that while working as a Branch Manager of the respondent-Gramin Bank, Khareri Branch between March 17, 1982 to August 8, 1983, he deselected in the performance of the duties in making payment of loans without ensuring supply of implements to the loans and deposit of adequate security from the dealers as a consequence of which the respondent-Bank was put to loss. The enquiry officer found that all the fourteen charges were proved. On the basis thereof, the disciplinary authority found that the charges were established and imposed the proposed punishment. Impugned order came to be passed, on appeal, by the Board. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The Special Appeal No. 1009 of 1996 was also dismissed on October 4, 1996 by the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, Thus, this special leave petition.2. Economic empowerment is a fundamental right of the weaker sections of the people, in particular ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1997)9SCC215
G.N. Ray and; G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.1. The election of the Gram Panchayats in the State of Bihar had taken place long back in the year 1978 and the election of Block/Panchayat Samitis and the Zila Parishads had also taken place in 1979 and 1980. Although re-election of such bodies ought to have been held long back, no such election has been held. We are informed that without deciding the question of vires the Bihar Panchayati Raj Act, 1993, after considering the correctness or otherwise of the judgment passed by the Patna High Court, no election can be held immediately. As it appears to us that members elected about 20 years back should not be permitted to remain in office for further indefinite period and administer the management of Gram Panchayats, Block/Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, we feel that it will be only proper if the duties and functions of such bodies are carried on by the officers of the State of Bihar who are primarily concerned with the administration of such bodie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC564; [2000(87)FLR189]; JT1998(9)SC502; 1999LabIC220; (1997)11SCC201
ORDER1. This Special Leave Petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, made on 12-7-1998 dismissing petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The father of the petitioner died on December 13, 1965 on which date the petitioner was below 6 years. He attained majority, on his own statement, on July 12, 1997, when he completed 18 years of age. He made an application on July 15, 1987 for his employment on compassionate grounds. The very object of making appointment on compassionate grounds is to rehabilitate the family in distress of the deceased employee who dies in harness. There should be no difficulty to consider an eligible candidate for providing immediate sustenance to the members of the deceased employee. He had applied on July 15, 1987 and the application was rejected on July 14, 1988. He filed the OA on July 12, 1993. In view of the long delay, after the refusal by the Government, in filing the application, the same cannot be ent...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1997SC1919A; JT1997(3)SC452; (1997)3SCC631; [1997]2SCR465; 1997(1)LC594(SC)
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the High Court of Patna, made in Appeal from the Original Order No. 406/89 on July 24, 1996. 2. The respondent had filed a suit for specific performance on the foot of an agreement alleged to have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served notice but since she did not contest the suit, ex-parte decree was granted. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Therein, her specific case was that she was not residing at Garhia village and, therefore, the notice could not be deemed to have been served on her. The endorsement is not correct. The question was gone into by the courts below after recording the evidence of one Laxuman Yadav, Mahendra Yadav and process server. It is their case that on January 15, 1985 when the summons were handed over to Mst. Bhabia Devi and when she was acquainted with the facts, she refused to sing or p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT1997(3)SC397; (1997)IILLJ231SC; (1997)3SCC561a; [1997]2SCR455
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, made on December 24, 1996 in O.A. No. 1333/95. 2. The admitted position is that the petitioner, while working as Section Officer in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, came on deputation to the C.A.T., Hyderabad Bench on June 14, 1989 as Private Secretary to the Member. Thereafter, he sought absorption in the services of the C.A.T. as Private Secretary. There was a long drawn correspondence on this issue and ultimately an option was given to him to get absorbed as Section Officer. Accordingly, he opted for and accepted unconditionally his absorption as a Section Officer in the CAT. He came to be absorbed w.e.f. November 4, 1996. He filed an O.A. in the Tribunal claiming seniority with reference to the date of his promotion as Section Officer in his parent Department or alternatively, from the date of his deputation from June 14, 1989 contending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2911; 1997(2)ALT32(SC); JT1997(3)SC453; (1999)ILLJ1123SC; 1997(2)SCALE557; (1997)3SCC545; [1997]2SCR467
ORDER1. Delay condoned.2. This special leave petition arises from the orders of the Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, made on June 21, 1995 in OA No. 213 of 1992 and the Review Order dated July 26, 1996.3. The admitted position is that the petitioners, who are working as Fitters (T & G), had sought to be fused in the category of, and to be on par with, Jig Borers. They sought equal pay on par with them. They contend that they were drawing higher pay-scales than the Fitter; instead of elevating their cadre and placing them in the Higher pay-scales, they have been brought them down in the category as a Fitter after removing the two nomenclatures. Thereby, it is arbitrary on account of invidious discrimination. The Third Pay Commission had gone into that aspect of the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admittedly, Expert Classification Committee and Anomalies Removal Committee had also gone into the matter and made distinction between them. Subsequently, nomenclature o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1998SC2348; JT1997(3)SC445; (1997)IILLJ36SC; (1997)9SCC272; [1997]2SCR452
ORDER1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras, made on 13.9.96 in O.A. No. 1369/93. The petitioners are the Permanent Way Inspectors in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. They had sought the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660 and when that was not given, they approached the Tribunal which has rejected their claim. Thus, this special leave petition.2. It is their contention that the Permanent Way Inspectors, Gr. III, Permanent Way Mistries and Direct Track Maintenance Mistries are separate cadres and are subordinate to the Petitioners. Therefore, they are entitled to higher scales of pay. It is true that, in an earlier batch of four applications by similarly situated employees, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench has given direction to grant the pay scales claimed by them. After the special leave petition was disposed of by this Court and an order was made in a contempt petition by the Tribunal, the Government considered t...
Tag this Judgment!