Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1994 (2) TMI 270

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... can assume his normal duties. The bone of his right arm is completely missing. He shall work properly with his left arm.   Subsequently, the respondents have absorbed him as Carrier Attendant in the pay scale of Rs 825-1300.   Feeling dissatisfied, the appellant approached the High Court and the High Court In the impugned order dismissed the writ petition on October 10, 1990 in limine. Thus this appeal by special leave. 3.   On September 24, 1993, we directed the   State Electricity Board, hereafter the 'Board', to constitute three members' Board of Doctors to examine the appellant whether he can discharge the duties of Sub-Station Attendant or any other equivalent post carrying the pay scale of Rs ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....discharge the duties of alternative posts as mentioned above. They have also stated that the appellant has been able to write English and Hindi with his left hand and if the Board feels, he can be considered for clerical or non-technical post subject  to   his   meeting   educational   administrative requirements of the Board. 5. In the objections filed by the appellant  he mentioned that he was performing the duties in 33 KV and that there is no prior practice given to him for handling 66 KV and his advocate was not permitted to attend at the time when he was examined thereby sought to make some allegations against the Medical Board. We pay no heed, nor countenance such unwarranted allegat....