Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(8)SC26; (2002)10SCC133
ORDERA.P. Misra, J.1. Leave granted.2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 27th February, 1998, wherein the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Appellant.4. The Appellant was recruited as Constable in Punjab Police on 21st July, 1988. It is also not in dispute that he is a temporary employee. By an order dated 22nd February, 1997, he was discharged from the service under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules as in the opinion of Senior Superintendent Police, the Appellant was unlikely to prove efficient as police officer. That order was sustained by the High Court. Aggrieved by that the Appellant has filed the present appeal. The short question raised in this appeal is whether Respondents should have been given an opportunity before passing an order of discharge under the aforesaid Rule 12.21. The said Rule 12.21 is quoted herein :Rule 12.21: Discharge or Inefficient - A Constable who is found unlikely to prove an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(4)ALLMR(SC)696; JT2000(7)SC473; (2000)9SCC416; (2003)3UPLBEC1932
1. Leave granted.2. The grievance before us in this appeal is in relation to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench holding that substitute Extra Departmental Agents of the Postal Department who have worked for 180 days or more in one calendar year continuously can claim to be regularized. The Tribunal gave a further direction that the Appellants should determine on the basis of available records the period for which the Respondents have worked continuously and if such period in any calendar year exceeds 180 days, neglecting short artificial breaks, should absorb them in future vacancies, provided they satisfy the eligibility conditions. When similar matters came up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 1624 of 1986 and connected matters, this Court held that the claim on behalf of substitutes ordinarily is not entertainable but made it clear that, however, if they have worked for long periods continuously, their cases could be appropriately considered ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC3561; 2001(3)ALT16(SC); JT2000(7)SC540
1. Leave granted.2. The principal contention on behalf of the appellant is that no service of the writ petition was effected upon him after the High Court made an order on 10th November, 1997 thus : 'Notice regarding rule'. No doubt, on 13th January, 1998, the Court has recorded, '(N)o one has appeared for R-5 despite service of notice.' But that is not borne out by the record. Most telling is a communication dated 22nd January, 1999 on behalf of the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court. It refers to the writ petition and states 'that there is no acknowledgment to show that notice of W.P. had been served on the 5th respondent or on his counsel in W.P. 24856/97. However, Cause List dt. 25-3-98 shows the name of the Advocate for the Caveator (Res.-5) which is sufficient Notice to R-5.' This, in our view, is not correct. Notice must be served on the concerned respondent even though he might have appeared on caveat unless counsel on his be-half has waived service. There is nothing to sho...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : 2000(2)ALD(Cri)788; 2000(3)BLJR2420; [2000]102CompCas409(SC); 2000(3)CTC164; JT2000(7)SC563; (2002)9SCC415
ORDERG.B. Pattanaik, J.1. Leave granted.2. Accused who is the Appellant, assails the order of the High Court refusing to quash the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The only ground on which the learned Counsel for the Appellant prays for quashing of the complaint is that on the assertions made in paragraph 8 of the complaint, it must be held that notice has not been served and, therefore, an application under Section 138 could not have been maintained. Undoubtedly, the accused has a right to pay the money within 15 days from the date of the service of notice and only when it fails to pay, it is open for the complainant to file a case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. That being the position and in the complaint itself having not been mentioned that the notice has been served, on the assertions made in paragraph 8, the complaint itself is not maintainable. We accordingly quash the complaint.3. The appeal is accordingly allowed....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2001)IILLJ1177SC; (2000)10SCC590
ORDER1. Pursuant to our earlier order dated November 11, 1999 a moot question regarding identification of 177 eligible workmen was entrusted to Justice Bhagabati Prosad Banerjee, retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court. The learned Judge, after hearing the parties concerned and after undertaking a marathon exercise spread over three months by camping at the site at Siliguri and by even going to the houses of the claimants concerned, has given his report dated February 24, 2000. We appreciate the task undertaken by him. Copies of the report have been seen by learned counsel for the parties in these proceedings. The report shows that out of 177 claimants whose identification was to be done, some of them already absorbed are listed at p. 2 of the report. 19 persons were found to be dead and ultimately according to the report 23 person listed at p. 6 of the report were duly identified and found to be eligible for absorption. In o(sic) order of November 1, 1999 it was made cle(sic) that on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2470; 85(2000)DLT358(SC); JT2000(5)SC611; 2000(4)SCALE100; (2000)5SCC708
ORDERR.P. Setbi, J.1. Leave granted.2. Rent control legislations have been acknowledged to be pieces of social legislation which seek to strike a just balance between the rights of the landlord and the requirements of the tenants. Such legislations prevent the landlords from taking the extreme step of evicting the tenants merely upon technicalities or carved grounds. This Court IN Mangat Ram v. Kedar Nath : [1981]1SCR476 held that where the Rent Acts afford a real and sanctified protection to the tenant, the same should not be nullified by giving a hyper-technical or liberal construction to - the language of the statute which instead of advancing the object of the Act may result in its frustration. The Rent Acts have primarily been enacted to give protection to the tenants.3. The history of the legislation regarding Rent Controls in the country would show that the Rent Acts were enacted to overcome the difficulties arising out of the scarcity of the accommodation which arose primarily ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(5)SC371; 2000(4)SCALE367; (2000)5SCC525
B.N. Kirpal and; S.S. Mohammed Quadri, JJ.1. This is an application where the main prayer is that the order of this Court dated 10-5-1996 should be ordered to be implemented. By the said decision reported as M.C. Mehta v. Union of India1 this Court, inter alia, directed that in respect of hazardous/noxious/heavy and large industries, there should be compliance with the Masterplan of Delhi which came into effect in 1990. With regard to the hazardous industry which was existing in Delhi, the said Masterplan required that the industry should shift within three years. As far as heavy and large industries were concerned, the Masterplan did not permit any new heavy or large industry to be set up and with regard to the existing heavy and large industrial units, it was stated that they shall shift to Delhi Metropolitan Area and the National Capital Region keeping in view the National Capital Region Plan and National Industrial Policy of the Government of India. The land which was to be vacated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC471; (2001)ILLJ605SC; (2001)10SCC563; (2000)2UPLBEC1830
1. Leave granted.2. This appeal is directed against the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, which was affirmed by the High Court by dismissing the Writ Petition filed against the said order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal followed the earlier decision of the Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 177/1994, and it is also correct that Special Leave Petition against the said decision of the Cuttack Bench was dismissed in limine. But in an identical matter, the Calcutta Bench of the CAT referred to the Full Bench as it was brought to the notice of the Calcutta Bench that a contrary view had been taken by the Bangalore Bench of the CAT, and that decision had not been brought to the notice of the Cuttack Bench. The Full Bench of the Tribunal, however, thought it appropriate that the matter should be referred to the 5th Pay Commission and the matter on being referred to the 5th Pay Commission, the Commission has granted the higher scale to these groups of employees with effect...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : JT2000(7)SC402; (2001)10SCC751
ORDER1. Leave granted.2. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 who are the contesting Respondents finally in this appeal.3. Respondent No. 5 who is a contesting Respondent though served, has not thought it fit to appear and contest the present proceedings. Respondent No. 4 who is deemed to be served has not thought it fit to appear and contest the proceedings though 30 days are over since the issuance of notice to him. Respondent Nos. 6 & 9 who are reported dead are merely proforma Respondents. Their names shall stand struck off from the record as no application for bringing their legal representatives on record is filed so far by the Appellants. Rest of the Respondents are proforma Respondents.4. In a suit of the year 1980, the High Court by its impugned judgment has remanded the proceedings for fresh decision of the trial court. The reasoning adopted by the High Court for passing the remand order is that no issue was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2000SC2297; JT2000(5)SC593; 2000(4)SCALE401; (2000)4SCC625
ORDERS.Saghir Ahmed, J.1. Leave granted.2. On 21-10-1961, each of the respondents was allotted an area of 7.06 acres of Government land situated in village Manchirevula, District Rangareddy, situated at a distance of about 10 miles from the city of Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh. This assignment was subject to two conditions, namely, (i) that the land would be used only for cultivation, and (ii) that it would not be alienated regarding which each one of the assignees had given a written undertaking that they would not sell the land under any circumstance without the prior sanction of the Tehsildar and in case the land was sold, it would revert back to the Government. (Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M. N. Rao and Mr. Sudhir Chandra object to this undertaking being read by us on the ground that this was not filed before the High Court).3. In exercise of the power conferred by Section 172 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 F., the Government had made THE LAONI RULES, ...
Tag this Judgment!