Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, R. S. PATHAK, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
K. Nagaraj: D. Shankaran: D. Subba Raju – Appellant
Versus
State Of A. P. : State Of A. P. : Chief Secretary Of A. P. – Respondent
Judgment
CHANDRACHUD, CJI. : - In the elections held to the Legislative. Assembly of Andhra Pradesh in January 1983, a new political party called Telugu Desam was swept to power. It assumed office on Jan. 9, 1983. On Feb. 8, 1983 an order (G. O. Ms. No. 36) was issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh stating that it had decided to reduce the age of superannuation of all Government employees, other than in the last Grade Service, from 58 to 55 years. Two notifications issued in exercise of the power conferred by the proviso to Art. 309 read with Art. 313 of the Constitution were appended to that Order. The relevant Fundamental Rules were amended by the first notification, while the corresponding rules of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules were amended by the second notification. By these notifications, every Government servant, whether ministerial or non-ministerial but not belonging to the last Grade Service, who had already attained the age of 55 years was to retire from service with effect from Feb. 28, 1983. Speaking to the Government employees in the Secretariat premises the next day, the Chief Minister justified the reduction of the retirement age from 58 to 55 years on the
relied on : E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
followed : Bishun Narain Mishra v. State of U.P.
relied on : Satish Chandra Anand v. Union of India
State of Bombay v. Saubhagchand M. Doshi
Parshotamlal Dhingra v. Union of India
P. Balakotaiah v. Union of India
referred to : Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways
distinguished : High court of A.P. v. V.V.S. Krishnamurthy
Moti Ram Deka v. General Manager, N.E.F. Railways
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.
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.