Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC596; [1999(81)FLR496]; JT1998(8)SC629; 1998(6)SCALE618; (1999)1SCC549; (1999)1UPLBEC627
ORDERMrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. The respondents are Ex-servicemen who were re-employed by the Western Railways some time in the year 1990 against 10% quota fixed for Ex-servicemen, They were engaged through the Railway Recruitment Board. The respondents filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, being OA No. 1311 of 1992 claiming that they should be given city compensatory allowance and house rent allowance on the basis of their pay plus pension in view of Rule 1712(i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. They also claimed privilege passes and P.T.Os. on the basis of their pay as well as pension. This claim was based on Rule 65(l)(b) of the Pass Manual. The Tribunal has granted these claims to the respondents. Hence the present appeal.2. Rule 1712(i) of the Indian railway Establishment Code, Volume II is as follows'In the case of re-employed pensioner, where pay plus pension exceeds the sanctioned maximum pay of the post, the allowances would ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999(1)SCALE5b; (1999)2SCC548
ORDER1. we have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Attorney General for the respondent-authorities. In our view as the Rules framed by the Chief Justice of India in exercise of his powers under Article 146(2) of the Constitution of India styled as the Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Revised Pay) Rules, 1993' had been sent on 15th September 1993 to the President of India for his approval in accordance with Article 146(2) of the Constitution of India and as they have still not been approved and in view of the fact that the Supreme Court Officers & Servants (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 have also been forwarded to the President on 04th December 1997 and as the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 are also not still approved by the President and in view of the further fact that the Central Government employees have already been given the benefit of the Revised Pay Scales as per the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission with effect from 01st January 1996, interest of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 1999CriLJ3526; 1999(1)SCALE5
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. In our opinion, the appellant has made out a case for releasing him on bail. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court so far as the appellant is concerned and order that he be released on bail subject to the conditions that:(a) He shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or permission to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him to disclose such facts to the court; or to any other authority;(b) He shall remain present before the court on the dates fixed for hearing of the case. If he wants to remain absent then he shall take prior permission of the Court and in case of unavoidable circumstances for remaining absent he shall immediately give intimation to the Court of Special Judge, (AHD), Patna and also to the Superintendent, C.B.I. If for any reason the appellant, wants to remain absent or is not able to remain presen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC719; JT1998(9)SC62; 1998(6)SCALE620; (1999)2SCC253; [1998]Supp3SCR622; [1999]112STC609(SC)
A.P. Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. The appellant-Association which is doing the business of transporting goods within and outside the State of Tripura, is aggrieved by the judgment of the Gauhati High Court dismissing writ Appeal challenging the constitutional validity of the Tripura Sales Tax [11th Amendment] Rules, 1994, (for short 'the Rules') and Sections 29, 32 and 36A of the Tripura Sales Tax Act, 1976, (for shot 'the Act') including notifications dated 23rd September, 1994 and 15th October, 1994. By means of the aforesaid 11th Amendment, Sub-rule (3) has been inserted after Sub-rule (2) of Rule 46-A of the Tripura Sales Tax Rules, 1976, (for short 'Principal Rules'), Sub-rule (IA) has been inserted after sub-rule 63-A (1), Sub-rule (2) in Rule 63A has been substitution in place of old Sub-rule (2) of the principal Rules and Rule 64A has been substituted for the old sub-rule 64A. The resultant effect of such amendment is that the appellant, who are working as Transporters in Tripu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC582a; RLW1998(1)SC79
ORDERJagannadha Rao, J.1. The dispute in this batch of I.As. is between the Workmen and Management of M/s. Birla Textiles (Prop. Textiles Ltd., Calcutta). Common questions arise in all these I.As. 2. The I.A. 202 of 1992 (in I.A. 22 in W.P. 4677 of 1985) has been filed on behalf of 2800 workers of M/s. Birla Textiles (Proprietor Textiles Ltd., Calcutta) (the 'industry') who claim to have worked for various periods ranging from 5 to 30 years and whose services are in jeopardy upon the closure of the industry at Delhi, consequent to orders of this court. The reliefs sought for in this I.A. are (j) payment of full back wages w.e.f. 1.12.1996 along with 18% interest (ii) to treat the workmen as in continuous employment for 1.12.1996 (iii) to direct the industry to deem that the workmen have exercised option to shift in accordance with order of this Hon'ble Court, (iv) to direct the industry to give 1 year's wages as shifting bonus (v) to direct the industry to ask the workmen to report at ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC582; JT1998(9)SC103; 1998(6)SCALE661; (1999)2SCC91; [1998]Supp3SCR725
M. Jagannadha Rao, J.1. The dispute in this batch of I.As is between the Workmen and Management of M/s Birla Textile (Prop. Textiles Ltd., Calcutta). Common question arise in all these I.As.2. The I.A. 202 of 1992 (in I.A. 22 in W.P. 4677 of 1985) has been filed on behalf of 2800 workers of M/s. Birla Textiles (Proprietor Textiles Ltd., Calcutta) (the 'Industry') who claim to have worked for various periods ranging from 5 to 30 years and whose services are in jeopardy upon the closure of the industry at Delhi, consequent to orders of this Court. The reliefs sought for in this I.A. are (i) payment of full back wages w.e.f. 1.12.1996 along with 18% interest (ii) to treat the workmen as in continuous employment for 1.12.1996 (iii) to direct the industry to deem that the workmen have exercised option to shift in accordance with order of this Hon'ble Court (iv) to direct the industry to give 1 year's wages as shifting bonus (v) to direct the industry to ask the workmen to report at the sele...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (1999)151CTR(SC)276
Mrs`. Sujata V. Manohar, J.Civil Appeal Nos. 2544-45 of 1988 pertain to assessment year 1972-73 while Civil Appeal Nos. 642-48 of 1989 pertain to assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72. The Tribunal had referred the following questions to the High Court for determination under section 256(l) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')At the instance of the revenue:'Assessment year 1965-66.Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 56 received by the assessee-company for letting out the plant and machinery to the contractors were not taxable ?Assessment year 1966-67:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 7,224 received by the assessee-company for letting out of the plant and machinery to the contractors were not taxable ?Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC387; [1999]236ITR315(SC); JT1998(8)SC615; 1998(6)SCALE611; (1999)1SCC645; [1998]Supp3SCR680
Sujata V. Manohar, J.1. Civil Appeal Nos. 2544-45 of 1988 pertain to assessment year 1972-73 while Civil Appeal Nos. 642-48 of 1989 F pertain to assessment years 1965-66 to 1971-72. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal had referred the following questions to the High Court for determination Under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:-At the instance of the Revenue:Assessment year 1965-66:Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 56 received by the assessee-company for letting out the plant and machinery to the contractors were not taxable? Assessment year 1966-67:(1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the hire charges of Rs. 7,224 received by the assessee-company for letting out of the plant and machinery to the contractors were not taxable?(2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal wa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC647; JT1998(9)SC7; 1998(6)SCALE642; (1999)2SCC330; [1998]Supp3SCR693
S.B. Majmudar, J.1. Leave granted.2. By consent of learned counsel for the parties, we have heard this appeal finally and the same is being disposed of by this judgment. The short question involved in this appeal is as to how the quota and rota for recruiting Professors in the Department of Ophthalmology in the medical college belonging to the appellant-State of Punjab is to be operated. The relevant factual matrix for deciding this controversy may be noted at the outset.Background facts :3. The respondent, at the relevant time when this controversy arose, was working as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Ophthalmology in the Government Medical College, Patiala. He was a promotee with effect from 20th June, 1984. Earlier he was working as Senior Lecturer from 6.8.1981. The question arose as to how the vacancy in the post of Professor of Ophthalmology was to be filled in on the retirement of one Dr. Shiv Inder Singh Rudra, Professor of Ophthalmology, with effect from 31.10.1996...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1999SC753; 1999(1)CTC467; JT1998(9)SC81; (1999)ILLJ633SC; 1998(6)SCALE670; (1999)1SCC741; [1998]Supp3SCR659; [1999]1STC593(SC); (1999)1UPLBEC296
D.P. Wadhwa, J.1. These three appeals are directed against the common judgment dated February 24, 1984 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) holding that the appellant is an 'authority' and an instrumentality of the State and as such amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and setting aside the dismissal orders passed against the respondents being violative of the Service Rules as applicable to them.2. Respondent - Chandra Bhan Dubey (CA 514/85) was working as a Branch Accountant in the Nakur Branch, District Saharanpur of the appellant. It was alleged that he committed various irregularities and a charge-sheet dated June 27, 1980 was served upon him containing various charges. These included that Dubey locked the Bank premises affecting the very prestige of the Bank as well as of Branch Manager; that he disclosed confidential letter of the Bank to an unauthorized person; that he did not manage properly to keep with him the cash and draft receipt...
Tag this Judgment!