Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
15 judgments · newest first · showing 1–15
The Supreme Court examined whether Rule 2423-A of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, as amended, which permits adding certain years of service to the qualifying service for superannuation pension, is available to railway officers who retired after 31 March 1960 irrespective of whether their …
The petitioners, railway clerks belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, challenged a Railway Board letter dated 9 October 2003 that applied the reservation policy to posts created by a cadre‑restructuring exercise in Group C and D. The Central Administrative Tribunal had struck down …
The case concerned Traffic Apprentices recruited by Indian Railways before 15‑May‑1987 who claimed entitlement to the higher pay scale (Rs 1600‑2660) introduced for post‑cut‑off recruits. The Supreme Court had earlier, in Union of India v. M. Bhaskar, upheld the Railway Board's memorandum limiting …
The appellant, a railway signal engineer, was suspended on 21‑January‑1982 and later compulsorily retired on 25‑November‑1992. During the suspension he received only a subsistence allowance equal to 75 % of his revised basic pay, which the President ordered to count as qualifying service for pension …
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. submitted draft standing orders for certification under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. The draft was partially certified, and the clause on representation of a workman in disciplinary proceedings was left unmodified, thereby retaining the …
The case concerned railway employees who retired between 1 January 1973 and 4 December 1988 and whose pension was to be calculated under Rule 2544 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, which then allowed a running allowance of up to 75% of other emoluments. The Railway Board later issued …
The respondents, promoted from the running cadre (Driver Grade‑C) to the stationary post of Loco Supervisor before 1 January 1986, claimed that their pay should be stepped up to match that of a senior colleague, Sh. P.N. Kareer, who was promoted after the revised pay scales came into force and …
The appellant, selected as an Assistant Station Master, argued that his seniority over two respondents should be based on his earlier completion of training, invoking Rule 303(1)(a) of the Railway Establishment Code which he said mandates seniority from the date of training completion. The …
M. Ramjayaram applied for the post of Law Assistant in South Central Railway and scored over 60% in the written test and performed well in the viva. Two other candidates were awarded an additional 15 marks for seniority under Rule 320 of the Railway Establishment Code, which gave them a higher total …
Gyan Chand, a Group B railway officer, was compulsorily retired under Rule 1802 of the Railway Establishment Code. He contended that, because he had not been formally confirmed on the Group B post and was therefore still on probation, the proviso to Rule 1802 should allow him to revert to his …
The respondent, a railway employee, gave three months' notice on 22 July 1985 to retire voluntarily under Article 1802(b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, with the notice period ending on 21 October 1985. While the notice period was pending, he was suspended in a disciplinary proceeding and …
V.S. Murthy, a former railway clerk, was deputed to Hindustan Organic Chemicals Limited, a public sector undertaking, and later absorbed permanently. While on deputation he received his regular railway pay plus a deputation (duty) allowance. Upon retirement he claimed that the allowance should be …
Shaik Ali, a Class III railway employee, was suspended after a confrontation with a Divisional Safety Officer and subsequently ordered to retire prematurely under Rule 2046(h)(ii) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, despite not having reached the required age of 55. The Central Administrative …
The appellants, originally appointed as Trade Apprentices and later promoted to Skilled Artisan, Instructor‑C (equivalent to Chargeman‑C) and Chargeman‑B, challenged Rule 328(2) inserted by the Railway Board, which retrospectively invalidated all promotions and service length accrued between August …
The petitioners, appointed as Temporary Assistant Engineers between 1955 and 1964 under a special scheme, claimed they were members of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE) Class I and were entitled to promotion under Rule 133(3)(c) and equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16 of the …
