Search Results for "Uttar Pradesh service rules"

523 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 523 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Dismisses IPS Officer's Challenge to Rejection of Voluntary Retirement. Central Government's Decision to Reject Voluntary Retirement Upheld as Disciplinary Proceedings Were Contemplated and Petitioner Was Not Clear from Vigilance Angle.

The petitioner, a 1997 batch IPS officer of Maharashtra Cadre, filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 7th ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes High Court's Retrospective Enhancement of Retirement Age in Service Regulations Case. High Court Exceeded Judicial Review Limits by Ordering Retrospective Effect from 2002 for Age Enhancement Under UP Industrial Area Development Act, 1976 and NOIDA Regulations, 1981.

The dispute arose from the enhancement of the retirement age for employees of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) from 58 to 60 yea...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Quashes High Court Order Granting Back Wages to Medical Officer in Service Dispute. Transfer Order Deemed Communicated Upon Dispatch Under Fundamental Rules, and Back Wages Denied for Period of Non-Joining Without Valid Justification.

The appeal arose from a dispute between the State of Uttar Pradesh and Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, a Medical Officer, concerning back wages for the period...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Allows LIC's Appeal Against Resigned Employee's Pension Claim — Resignation Not Voluntary Retirement Under Pension Rules. Employee Who Resigned Before Pension Scheme Notification Not Entitled to Retrospective Benefits Under LIC Pension Rules, 1995.

The Supreme Court considered a batch of appeals concerning employees of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, United India Insurance Company Limite...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Supreme Court Upholds Age Limit and Recruitment Interval Rules for Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service. Rules 8(1) and 12 of UPHJS Rules, 1975 Held Valid as Not Manifestly Arbitrary Under Articles 14 and 16.

The Supreme Court considered the constitutional validity of Rules 8(1) and 12 of the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975. The petitioner...