UMA NATH SINGH, T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH
Tikendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.12.2013 dismissing WP(C)No.284/2012 filed by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 27.03.2009 for compulsory retirement of the appellant/writ petitioner from service w.e.f. forenoon 01.07.2009.
2. Heard Mr. R Jha, learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr. K Paul, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.
3. The fact of the case sufficient for deciding the present writ appeal is briefly noted. The appellant/writ petitioner was enrolled as a recruit General Duty in Assam Rifles on 22.06.1979 and after completion of training at Assam Rifles Training Centre, he was posted to 13th Assam Rifles as his parent unit. On 26.01.1985, the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Laince Naik/GD on the basis of good performance and thereafter on 10.11.1986, the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the rank of Naik/GD. On 01.12.1987, the appellant/writ petitioner was promoted to the post of Havildar/GD. The appellant/writ petitioner was further promoted to the post of Naib Subedar/GD on 13.07.2006. It is the
Baidyanath Mahapatra v. State of Orissa
Baikuntha Nath Das v. District Medical Officer
State of Orissa v. Ram Chandra Das
State of Gujarat v. Umedbhai M. Patel
State of Punjab v. Gurdas Singh
State of Punjab v. Dewan Chuni Lal
Posts and Telegraphs Board & Ors v. C.S.N. Murthy
Pyare Mohan Lal v. State of Jharkhand
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Ors v. Babu Lal Jangir
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.