SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Guj) 185

D.C.SRIVASTAVA
D. W. PARMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: MANISHA LAV KUMAR SHAH, SAURABH J.MEHTA, Y.N.OZA

D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) ). THESE three petitions involving common questions of law and fact are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) ). SINCE Affidavits have been exchanged in these petitions and since learned Counsel for the two side have consented that these petitions be finally disposed of at the admission stage it is proposed to dispose of these petitions finally at the admission stage.

( 3 ) IN all the three petitions suspension order dated 27. 4. 2000 is under challenge. Petitioner D. W. Parmar of Special Civil Application No. 10576 of 2000 was appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer in Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. on 27. 12. 1979. The petitioner A. V. Shah of Special Civil Application No. 10577 of 2000 was likewise appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Department on 30. 6. 1982 and on 1. 11. 1994 he was deputed as Additional Assistant engineer in Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd. The petitioner T. R. Pandya of Special Civil Application No. 10578 of 2000 was appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer in Irrigation Department on 26. 2. 1982 and in the month of May, 1990 he was deputed as Additional Assistant Engineer in Sardar



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top