Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:MADAN MOHAN Vs. RESPONDENT:KRISHAN KUMAR SOOD DATE OF JUDGMENT12/01/1993 BENCH:YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) BENCH:YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J) VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) VENKATACHALA N. (J) CITATION:1993 SCR (1) 107 1994 SCC Supl. (1) 437 JT 1993 (1) 162 1993 SCALE (1)71 ACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:The Judg...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:DAGI RAM PINDI LAL AND ANR Vs. RESPONDENT:TRILOK CHAND JAIN AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT04/02/1992 BENCH:ANAND, A.S. (J) BENCH:ANAND, A.S. (J) KULDIP SINGH (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 990 1992 SCR (1) 545 1992 SCC (2) 13 JT 1992 (1) 526 1992 SCALE (1)249 ACT:Income Tax Act, 1922-Section 5...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.Vs. RESPONDENT:CHOWGULE AND CO. PVT. LTD. ETC. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT29/04/1992 BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M.<table cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse:collapse"><tbody><tr style="height:12pt"><td style="width:150pt"><p class="s1" style="padd...

Judges: A M Ahmadi, M M Punchhi And K Ramaswamy, Jj Act Indian Administrative Service Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Seniority Of Promotees Direct Recruits Assigning Year Of Allotment Procedure Legislative Intention What Is Junior Officer Promoted On Merit Superseding Seniors Year Of Allotment Of Such Officer Fixation Of Interpretation Of Statutes I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules, 1989 Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Construction Whether Prospective In Operation Legislative Intention What Is Constitution Of India 1950 Articles 14 16 And Rule 3 3 Ii Proviso Of I A S Regulation Of Seniority First Amendment Rules 1989 Constitutional Validity Of Whether Inconsistent With Section 3 La Of The All India Services Act, 1957 All India Services Act, 1951 Section 3 1 A Rules Made Under Rule 3 3 Ii, Proviso Of The First Amendment Rules, 1989 Consultation Object, Importance And Nature Of Failure To Consult All Stares And Union Territories Whether Proviso To Rule 3 3 Unconstitutional Headnote On 19 1 1984, The Association Petitioner No 1 In W P C No 499 Of 1991 Requested The Union Government Respondent To Remove The Disparity Prevailing In Different States Of Promotional Avenues From State Civil Services To All India Administrative Service A Committee Of Senior Secretaries, Constituted By The Union Government, Recommended An Equitable Principle Of Comparable Seniority From Different States For Promotion To The Indian Administrative Service The I A S Regulation Of Seniority Rules, 1987 Came Into Force With Effect From 6 11 1987, Repealing The Old Rules In A Circular Dated 9 9 1986 Issued By The Respondent Union Government Directed The State Governments To Give Weightage Over And Above Four Years The Assignment Of Year Of Allotment As Per The Existing Rules, Namely, Four Years For The First 12 Years State Service With Additional Weightage One Year For Every Two To The Years Completed Service Subject To A Maximum Of Five Years Union Government Amended And Published The New Seniority Rules, 1987, After Considering The Suggestions From The State Governments The First Amendment Rules Was Published In The Gazette Of India On 32 1989 Which Was Give

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:ATLAS CYCLE INDUSTRIES LTD.Vs. RESPONDENT:STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. DATE OF JUDGMENT11/08/1971 BENCH:RAY, A.N. BENCH:RAY, A.N.SIKRI, S.M. (CJ) PALEKAR, D.G.CITATION:1972 AIR 121 1972 SCR (1) 127 1971 SCC (2) 564 CITATOR INFO :E 1975 SC2172 (14) R 1975 SC2193 (11) R 1984 SC 58...

Judges: J S Verma, Yogeshwar Dayal And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Article 14 Contractual Transactions Of State Or Its Instrumentality Essential Requisites Non Arbitrariness, Fairness In Action And Due Consideration Of Legitimate Expectation Ignoring The Highest Bid Negotiations For Higher Offer And Acceptance Thereof Validity Of Administrative Law Doctrine Of Legitimate Expectation Forms Part Of Non Arbitrariness And Rule Of Law To Be Determined In The Larger Public Interest Open To Judicial Review Headnote The Appellant Corporation Invited Tenders For Sale Of Stocks Of Damaged Food Grains The Respondent S Bid Was The Highest Since The Appellant Was Not Satisfied About The Adequacy Of The Amount Offered Even In The Highest Tender, It Invited All The Tenders To Participate In The Negotiations, Instead Of Accepting The Highest Tender During The Course Of Negotiations, The Respondent Refused To Revise The Rates In Its Offer On The Basis Of The Highest Bid Made During The Negotiations, The Appellant Disposed Of The Stocks Of Damaged Foodgrains, Rejecting The Highest Tenders The Respondent, Whose Tender Was The Highest, Challenged The Decision Of The Appellants By Filing A Writ Petition Before The High Court It Was Contended That The Action Of The Appellant Was Arbitrary And Hence Violative Of Art 14 Of The Constitution The High Court Accepted The Contention And Allowed The Writ Petition Being Aggrieved By The High Court S Decision The Appellant Corporation Preferred The Present Appeal It Was Contended On Behalf Of The Appellant That There Being No Right In The Person Submitting The Highest Tender To Claim Acceptance Thereof, And Since All Tenderers Were Given Equal Opportunity To Participate In The Negotiations And To Revise The Bid Before Acceptance, The Action Of The Appellant Was Not Arbitrary The Respondent Contended That Since No Cogent Reasons Were Indicated For Rejecting All The Tenders And For Deciding To Dispose Of The Stock By Negotiating With The Tenderers For Procuring A Higher Price, Such A Decision Was Arbitrary Allowing The Appeal

11 November, 1992·PETITIONER:ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT28/05/1992 BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) BENCH:KASLIWAL, N.M. (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION:1992 SCR (3) 465 1993 SCC Supl. (1) 61 JT 1992 (4) 264 1992 SCALE (2)2 ACT:Delhi ...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And P B Sawant, Jj Act Civil Services State Bank Of India Promotion To The Post Of Head Clerk Circular No 42 Clause Three Options Outside The City Within City And Within The Same Office Debarment On Refusal Of Third And Final Offer Local Head Office And Five Other Offfices To Be Considered As One Unit Final Offer Made In One Such Office Whether Valid And Debars The Optees Permanently On Refusal To Accept Headnote The Appellant Bank Issued Circular No 42 Containing An Understanding Reached With The Staff Union Laying Down The Policy For Promotion Of Clerks To The Post Of Head Clerks As Per Clause 1 D Of The Circular The Employees Who Decline To Accept Head Clerk S Post At A Branch Office Outside The City In Which They Work, Will Have A Further Option When A Vacancy Arises At Any One Of The Bank S Offices Within That City However, This Was Subject To The Condition That At The Material Time There Was No Other Senior Employee Who Had Similarly Declined The Post Outside His Branch Office, In Which Case The Senior Most Would Have The First Choice It Was Further Provided That If An Employee Declines To Accept The Post Of Head Clerk At An Office Within The Same City, His Case Would Be Considered Only When A Vacancy Arises At His Office This Was Also Subject To The Condition That There Was No Senior Employee Similarly Situated At The Material Time If The Third And Final Offer Is Declined, There Would Be A Permanent Debarment Of Promotion Since There Were Six Offices At The Madras Local Head Office, A Common Seniority Was Maintained And All The Six Offices Were Considered As One Office, Viz Local Head Office Of Which The Other Five Offices Were Only Parts The Respondents Declined Their First, Second And Final Offers, Though Indisputably The Final Offer Was Made To Them For Being Posted In An Office Forming Part Of The Local Head Office Both The Respondents Moved The High Court By Way Of Writ Petitions And The High Court Took The View That The Final Offer Made Was Not In The Same Office And So They Were Entitled To Be Posted As Head Clerks In The Same Office Being Aggrieved By The Said Two Decisions Of The High Court, The Appellant Bank Preferred The Present Appeals On The Question Of Interpretation Of Clause 1 D Of The Circular In Question Allowing The Appeals, This Court, Held 1 The High Court S Interpretation Of Cl 1 D Of The Circular That The Third Offer Made Was Not In The Offic

09 November, 1992·PETITIONER:Y.P. CHAWLA AND ORS.Vs. RESPONDENT:M.P. TIWARI AND ANR.DATE OF JUDGMENT31/03/1992 BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH:KULDIP SINGH (J) SAHAI, R.M. (J) CITATION:1992 AIR 1360 1992 SCR (2) 440 1992 SCC (2) 672 JT 1992 (2) 429 1992 SCALE (1)760 ACT:Income-Tax Act, 1961:Ss. 279(2) Explanati...

Judges: Kuldip Singh And P B Sawant, Jj Act Civil Services State Bank Of India Promotion To The Post Of Head Clerk Circular No 42 Clause Three Options Outside The City Within City And Within The Same Office Debarment On Refusal Of Third And Final Offer Local Head Office And Five Other Offfices To Be Considered As One Unit Final Offer Made In One Such Office Whether Valid And Debars The Optees Permanently On Refusal To Accept Headnote The Appellant Bank Issued Circular No 42 Containing An Understanding Reached With The Staff Union Laying Down The Policy For Promotion Of Clerks To The Post Of Head Clerks As Per Clause 1 D Of The Circular The Employees Who Decline To Accept Head Clerk S Post At A Branch Office Outside The City In Which They Work, Will Have A Further Option When A Vacancy Arises At Any One Of The Bank S Offices Within That City However, This Was Subject To The Condition That At The Material Time There Was No Other Senior Employee Who Had Similarly Declined The Post Outside His Branch Office, In Which Case The Senior Most Would Have The First Choice It Was Further Provided That If An Employee Declines To Accept The Post Of Head Clerk At An Office Within The Same City, His Case Would Be Considered Only When A Vacancy Arises At His Office This Was Also Subject To The Condition That There Was No Senior Employee Similarly Situated At The Material Time If The Third And Final Offer Is Declined, There Would Be A Permanent Debarment Of Promotion Since There Were Six Offices At The Madras Local Head Office, A Common Seniority Was Maintained And All The Six Offices Were Considered As One Office, Viz Local Head Office Of Which The Other Five Offices Were Only Parts The Respondents Declined Their First, Second And Final Offers, Though Indisputably The Final Offer Was Made To Them For Being Posted In An Office Forming Part Of The Local Head Office Both The Respondents Moved The High Court By Way Of Writ Petitions And The High Court Took The View That The Final Offer Made Was Not In The Same Office And So They Were Entitled To Be Posted As Head Clerks In The Same Office Being Aggrieved By The Said Two Decisions Of The High Court, The Appellant Bank Preferred The Present Appeals On The Question Of Interpretation Of Clause 1 D Of The Circular In Question Allowing The Appeals, This Court, Held 1 The High Court S Interpretation Of Cl 1 D Of The Circular That The Third Offer Made Was Not In The Offic

09 November, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.Vs. RESPONDENT:V. PARTHASARATHY ETC.DATE OF JUDGMENT09/11/1992 BENCH:[KULDIP SINGH AND P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] ACT:Civil Services:State Bank of India-Promotion to the post of Head Clerk- Circular No. 42-Clause Three options-Outside the city-within city and within the...

Judges: L Sharma, N Venkatachala

06 November, 1992·ORDER N. Venkatachala, J.1. Special leave to appeal, as sought, is granted. Appeal is being disposed of after hearing learned Counsel appearing on both sides.2. Manoj Kumar Rai, the appellant and Shiv Shankar Rai, respondent-4, were candidates sponsored by Employment Exchange for being appointed to ...

Judges: P Sawant, G Ray

06 November, 1992·1. Special leave granted. As a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, the appellant joined the Board of Arbitration, Ministry of Labour as its Chairman on 31st December, 1984 and served in that capacity till 2nd August, 1988. There is no dispute that during this period he received remuneration as pe...

Judges: Lalit Mohan Sharma, S Mohan And N Venkatachala, Jj Act Constitution Of India, 1950 Articles 32 And 226 Public Interest Litigation Writ Petition Filed Seeking Relief For An Ailing Doctor, Staying With Brother Maintainability Of High Court Granting Relief Validity Of State Not Expected To Choose Individuals For Special Treatment Judicial Process Not To Be Allowed To Be Used For The Satisfaction Of Individual Whims Guidelines For Entertainment Of Such Claims Laid Down Headnote A Large Number Of Doctors Employed In The State Health Services Of The Appellant State Were Leaving India For Higher Studies, After Obtaining Leave For A Couple Of Years, And Thereafter, They Were Neither Returning To India, Nor Were Sending Any Further Applications For Extension Of Leave This Was Causing Considerable Hardship To The Public As This Trend Persisted, The State Authorities Wanted To Take Appropriate Corrective Steps Since The Absentee Doctors Had Not Informed The Department Of Their Addresses, Personal Service Of Notice On Such Doctors Could Not Be Effected A General Notice Was Published And Press Communique Was Issued In Newspapers In India And Abroad Calling Upon Them To Offer Their Explanations For Remaining Absent From Service For More Than Five Years, Within The Specified Time And Indicating That On Their Failure To Do So, The Services Of 320 Doctors Would Be Terminated With The Concurrence Of The State Public Service Commission And The Approval Of The State Cabinet Services Of Doctors Were, Accordingly, Terminated The Respondent Filed A Public Interest Litigation Before The High Court Stating That The Particular Doctor Was Unwell And Was In Need Of Financial Help The Services Of This Doctor Had Also Been Terminated Along With Others The Details As To How She Was Taken Ill And Admitted In A Hospital Outside The Country And Then Brought Back To India For Further Treatment In The State, Were Given The High Court Directed The Appellants To Pay The Post Retirement Benefits To The Medical Officer Doctor Concerned Earlier The High Court Had Also Directed Payment Of Rs 2, 000 To The Respondent Writ Petitioner As Relief To The Doctor Concerned Allowing The Appeal Of The State, This Court, Held 1 1 It Is Not Known How The Respondent Writ Petitioner Became So Interested In The Beneficiary

05 November, 1992·PETITIONER:STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS Vs. RESPONDENT:KAMLESH JAIN DATE OF JUDGMENT05/11/1992 BENCH:[LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] ACT:Constitution of India, 1950:Articles 32 and 226-Public Interest Litigation-Writ Petition filed seeking relief for an ailing doctor, staying with ...