Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Court clarifies seniority based on substantive appointment date, not position. Appeal allowed, seniority tied to appointment date.</h1> <h3>G.C. Gupta and Ors. Versus N.K. Pandey and Ors.</h3> The court determined that seniority should be based on the date of substantive appointment, not necessarily linked to permanent positions. The seniority ... - Issues Involved:1. Determination of seniority between temporary Assistant Engineers and probationary Assistant Engineers.2. Validity of the seniority list and its preparation.3. Interpretation and application of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936.4. Impact of delay and laches on the maintainability of the writ petition.5. Effect of confirmation and substantive appointment on seniority determination.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of seniority between temporary Assistant Engineers and probationary Assistant Engineers:The core issue was the determination of seniority between respondents (temporary Assistant Engineers) and appellants (probationary Assistant Engineers). The respondents were appointed as temporary Assistant Engineers in 1947-1948 and confirmed in 1950, while the appellants, who were toppers from Thomson College of Civil Engineering, were appointed on probation in 1951-1952 and confirmed in 1955. The court held that the seniority should be determined from the date of substantive appointment, not necessarily linked to permanent positions. Rule 23 of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936, was pivotal in this determination.2. Validity of the seniority list and its preparation:The validity of the seniority list prepared by the government was challenged. The High Court had quashed the seniority list and directed the preparation of a fresh list in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court upheld that the seniority list prepared in 1956 was arbitrary and in contravention of Rule 23, which mandates that seniority be determined based on the date of substantive appointment.3. Interpretation and application of the United Provinces Service of Engineers (Buildings and Roads Branch) Class II Rules, 1936:The court extensively analyzed the rules, particularly Rule 3(b), Rule 5, Rule 16, Rule 17, Rule 19, and Rule 23. It clarified that a member of the service is one appointed in a substantive capacity, which includes both permanent and temporary posts. The court emphasized that the appointment in a substantive capacity does not necessitate a permanent post but can include a temporary post of long duration.4. Impact of delay and laches on the maintainability of the writ petition:The court addressed the preliminary objection regarding the delay in filing the writ petition. It noted that representations were made as early as 1959, and the writ petition was filed in 1973. Despite the delay, the court decided to consider the merits of the case due to the pending representations and the government's failure to address them timely. However, the court ultimately denied relief based on laches and delay, citing that the challenge to the seniority list after 17 years would cause administrative difficulties and injustice to the appellants who had already been promoted.5. Effect of confirmation and substantive appointment on seniority determination:The court clarified that confirmation is not the sole criterion for determining seniority. It held that substantive appointment, whether to a permanent or temporary post, is the key factor. The court cited previous rulings, including Baleshwar Dass v. State of U.P., to support that an appointment in a substantive capacity, even to a temporary post, qualifies one as a member of the service for seniority purposes.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside due to the inordinate delay and laches. The court directed that henceforth, seniority should be determined from the date of substantive appointment, irrespective of whether the post is permanent or temporary. No costs were awarded.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found