Refusal to approve appointment from its inception cannot be sustained and Education Officers order should be modified.
Although Court acknowledges landowners' right to fair compensation and recognizes potential errors by competent authority, Petitioner has alternative legal recourse by challenging initial award hence, Court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution to enforce modified award, deeming it a nullity.
Delays in both petitions are within one year, Collector should have exercised his powers to condone delays, especially considering Petitioners are illiterate agriculturists unfamiliar with legal procedures thus, sufficient cause exists for Collector to act in accordance with Act.
Impugned Order from December 11, 2025, affirming seniority list dated September 11, 2024 set aside, while stipulating that one Petitioners promotion is contingent on pending Supreme Court outcomes.
Impugned order granting deemed conveyance is deemed unsustainable and should be quashed and all actions taken pursuant to said Certificate are also quashed.
Power to enforce security interests under Sarfaesi Act does not negate jurisdiction of Arbitrator under Section 84, thus facilitating swift debt recovery process without conflict between two acts hence, there is no warrant for interference with awards.
Reference Courts dismissal of this instance was erroneous; thus, Appellants should receive compensation at this rate for dry land and Rs. 4,383/- per Are for semi-irrigated land.
No evidence that Petitioner held sanctioned sweeper post in Nagar Panchayat or was ever regularized there therefore, conditions for applying Lad-Page recommendations are not met and Petitioners claim for compassionate appointment fails.
Tribunals approach is criticized as overly pedantic and delays should be accommodated with costs hence, impugned order set aside and application shall stand allowed and written statement filed along with it shall be taken on record.
Appellants civil suit, filed hastily without adhering to statutory requirements, is deemed vulnerable from its inception hence, impugned Order passed by City Civil Court, is upheld.
Petitioner remains employed but has suffered debilitating brain stroke, rendering him nearly bed-ridden and eligible for benefits under 2016 Act due to acquired disability.
Charges, particularly for violation of Rule 146.4, stemmed from registered crime against Petitioner and none of his actions related directly to his official duties or obligations, with sufficient explanations for any non-disclosure of personal matters hence, impugned order set-aside and Respondents shall reinstate Petitioner on his original post.
Petitioner registered birth certificates after being elected as Sarpanch in January 2021, likely to avoid disqualification, as school records have presumed value and clearly indicate children were born after cut-off date of 12.09.2001 hence, no reason to interfere with order passed by authorities.
Shalarth System was implemented by Government of Maharashtra to manage salary disbursement for private school employees hence, those employees, with appointments approved by Education Officer are eligible for Shalarth Identity.
Justification for actions referenced in orders is outside scope of show cause notice, thus rendering those orders unsustainable hence, Respondents are ordered to pay ₹25 lakhs to Petitioners due to lengthy litigation process and associated costs incurred.
Decree for specific performance of contract remains executable despite defendant No. 2s death, as judgment indicates it does not negate actions against deceased parties.
Petitioner, moving from Laboratory Assistant to Shikshan Sevak, is entitled to regular pay scale for teaching position and prior approval for an honorarium must be corrected to reflect this entitlement.
Plaintiffs argue that cause of action is clearly outlined in plaint and limitation should not be based solely on registration date of sale deeds thus, accepting opposite argument would be harsh regarding law of limitation.
Order lacks compelling reasons to dissolve Gram Panchayat and Chief Executive Officers report supports that dissolution is unwarranted, as no circumstances indicate any operational failure.
Intervenors, seeking to assert independent rights over property in question, are not entitled to join as Defendants in existing suit and must seek their claims in a separate action, which is currently pending.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer