Follow:
- Next story W.M.P.Nos.2074, 2076 and 2077 of 2021 in W.P.Nos.20397, 20398 and 20401 of 2020 and W.M.P.No.6978 of 2021 in W.P.(MD) No.18535 of 2020 and W.P.Nos.17947, 19114, 1516, 18261, 18829, 19049, 19137, 19180, 19190, 19053, 17637, 20007 of 2020, 3653, 729, 1197, 1205, 1470, 2699, 2705, 2932, 3182, 3700, 4933, 4954 of 2021, W.P.(MD) Nos. 17163, 17174 to 17176, 17177, 17178, 17167, 17168, 17170, 17164, 17165, 17171 to 17173, 17179, 17181, 17624, 17625, 17649, 18107, 18109, 18552, 18561, 18564, 18566, 18568, 18555, 18558, 18571, 18758, 18956, 19606 of 2020, 54, 60, 56, 63, 64 and 67 of 2021 Reserved on Pronounced on 01.04.2021 19.04.2021 Petitioner Respondent THE ASSOCIATION OF TAMIL NAD U HIGHWAYS ENGINEERS, REP. BY GENERAL SECRETARY, NO.35V, TALUK OFFICE ROAD, SAIDAPET, CHENNAI 600 015 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 600 009 Petitioner Counsel Respondent Counsel Prayer (W.P.No.20397/2020): calling for the records of the respondent in G.O.Ms.No. 404 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 12.11.2020 and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and consequently direct the respondent to grant revision of pay scale in terms of G.O. Ms.No. 283, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010 based on the pay scale presently drawn by the petitioner together with all consequential benefits flowing there from Prayer (W.M.P.No.2074/2021): To vacate the interim stay granted on 30.12.2020 made in WMP.Nos.25167 and 25168 of 2020 in W.P.No. 20397 of 2020. S.VAIDYANATHAN,J., The following Miscellaneous Petitions have been filed, seeking to vacate the interim orders passed by this Court on 14.12.2020 and 30.12.2020: Sl.No. W.M.P.No. Prayer 1. W.M.P.No.2074 of 2021 in W.P.No.20397 of 2020 To vacate the interim stay granted on 30.12.2020 made in W.M.P.Nos.25167 and 25168 of 2020 in W.P.No.20397 of 2020. 2. W.M.P.No.2076 of 2021 in W.P.No.20398 of 2020 To vacate the interim stay granted on 30.12.2020 made in W.M.P.No.25172 of 2020 in W.P.No.20398 of 2020. 3. W.M.P.No.2077 of 2021 in W.P.No.20401 of 2020 To vacate the interim stay granted on 30.12.2020 made in W.M.P.No.25177 to 25179 of 2020 in W.P.No.20401 of 2020. 4. W.M.P.No.6978 of 2021 in W.P.(MD) No.18535 of 2020 To vacate the interim stay granted on 14.12.2020 made in W.M.P.(MD) No.15503 of 2020 in W.P.(MD) No.18535 of 2020. 2. This Court passed the aforesaid interim orders, restraining the Government from reducing the pay band, pertaining to certain Departments, in respect of which Writ Petitions have been filed. This Court also directed the Government to continue to pay the existing pay that were adopted earlier.
- Previous story Justice V Parthiban said a writ court is not a proper forum to settle a dispute of this nature involving interpretation of contractual terms and agreement and adjudication of the rival claims. MKU had in 2014 entered into an agreement with Coimbatore-based Set Infotect Pvt Ltd for creation of an e-learning portal and development of digital content for the directorate of distance education. On completion of the project stage-wise, the company forwarded the bills from time to time which were settled by the university.
Recent Posts
- [24/04, 20:20] DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHAT IF THE POLICE OFFICER FAILED TO REGISTER THE FIR INLIGHT OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?
- In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024
- Today MBA evening NAVJ / on “A Judge Criticizing his own Judgment in thematter of Suit for Land”/
- [25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar
- R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary
More
Recent Posts
- [24/04, 20:20] DURAIVAIYAPURI Mhc Advt: WHAT IF THE POLICE OFFICER FAILED TO REGISTER THE FIR INLIGHT OF THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE MAGISTRATE UNDER SECTION 156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE?
- In view of our decision holding the Tamil Nadu Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act 33 of 2010 as repugnant, void andultra vires the Constitution, the proceedings initiatedagainst the appellants by issuance of show cause notices in exercise of the power of such enactment are unsustainable and, as such, the common order ofthe learned Single Judge dated 3.7.2023 in W.P.Nos.17331, 13507, 13510, 13514, 14424,14426, 14428, 14432, 16963, 17164, 17399,17371, 18475 and 18479 of 2023 is set aside.(ii) The respective show cause notices/orders issued against the appellants shall stand quashed. However, the respondent authorities will be at liberty to initiatefresh proceedings under the Waqf Act, 1995, as amended, in accordance with law.(iii) There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, all connected miscellaneous petitionsare closed.(S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.)23.04.2024
- Today MBA evening NAVJ / on “A Judge Criticizing his own Judgment in thematter of Suit for Land”/
- [25/04, 11:08] sekarreporter1: ,[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: https://youtu.be/EqQEISHw-MQ?si=Vx_4sGsqVTaEXeBj[25/04, 11:03] sekarreporter1: [25/04, 10:55] sekarreporter1: Senior Advocate Srinath Sridevan recalled an interesting anecdote about former A-G R Krishnamoorthy, a doyen of Madras Bar
- R Y George Williams requested the first bench CISF extent to entire high court as well as entire judiciary in Tamilnau and further argued that baricaurd between the city court and High court May be removed and it maye be covered to entire campus to avoid multiple bresking to enter the high court premises. CJ informed that direction issued to everywhere. and further RY George Williams argued that high court for got the security of the lower judiciary