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

1969 Supreme(P&H) 28

SHAMSHER BAHADUR, R.S.NARULA, D.K.MAHAJAN
Jagdish Mitter – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent


Judgment

Shamsher Bahadur, J.

1. The question which has been referred to this Full Bench by the order of P. D. Sharma J. of 15th of February, 1967 arises from two sets of Bench decisions of this court in K. K. Jaggia v. State of Punjab ILR (1966) 1 Punj 302: Regular First Appeal No. 8-D of 1964 (Punj) Union of India v. Maharaj decided by D. B. Capoor and H. R. Khanna JJ. on 6th of September 1966 and the State of Punjab v. Ram Singh Brar. (1967) 1 Ser LR 594 (Punj) decided by Mahajan and Narula JJ. on the one hand and Union of India v. Ram Nath, ILR (1966) 2 Punj 907 = (AIR 1966 Punj 500) (Dular and S. K. Kapur Jj) on the other which though in conflict with each other purport to follow the same authority of the Supreme Court in Madhav Laxman Vaikunte v. State of Mysore (1962)1 SCR 886 = (AIR 1962 SC) the impasse which is sought to be void and unlawful can recover by a suit or proceedings filed in time his claim for arrears of salary in respect of the entire period when the he remained out of employment or is limited only to a period of three years before the institution of the suit or proceeding?....

2. The facts with regard to the case in point may now be briefly narrated. The petit




































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