Executive Engineer v. The Presiding Officer And ORS



 



  


  

  
 





!"

#$%$!&'(( )
* 



  + 


,  +- -
 - 
,  










'

 .- ( +


  +-   
  

 


 


   

 
 

 
 

 




! """"

  +-

, (

/ 0 #
$

  %
 


 

!!&'!!(


)  

*

+%
%
 

,  , -
.-
) 

 , 

 
% 
 % !
$
.-
) 

  

 

, +
,  
-+
,% 
$
, +
,
 

/##!#00#
$ .-
) 



, 

/#/1!//2
%
 -

 
 22

 



 

!#

 


 , 




,
$
%
,
 


 , +

 


#(3

*

 




#04(
5

 
6#04(
78
 %



 

% 
 
,

#(3

#04(
 2  

 


 

-
 , +

%


  

 - 7
!/#1


,


 
 ,
 






  



  , 
   Asgar Ali 2024.12.20 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document



 

4 . 
  






-




 
,








  
5.

In Senior Superintendent Telegraph (Traffic), Bhopal vs. Santosh Kumar Seal and others, (2010) 6 SCC 773, Hari Nandan Prasad and another vs. Employer I/R to Management of Food Corporation of India and another, (2014) 7 SCC 190, District Development Officer and another vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia, (2018) 12 SCC 298, State of Uttarakhand and another vs. Raj Kumar (2019) 14 SCC 353 and Ranbir Singh vs. Executive Engineer PWD (2021) 14 SCC 815 Supreme Court has held that it is neither mandatory nor automatic to reinstate workman who has been retrenched without complying with provisions of Section 25F of 1947 Act. & 9 %


 :
;

%




)  




%

 

) 
  %

%


 

 
 ,



, +<
 =

<
%
    <


,%

, +

 


#(3
 #04(


 

$ - 




 

 
 %






₹50,000':

 



 , +
.

 
-

,
2

 
 7.

Disposed of in above terms.

8.

Pending misc. application (s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

  +- 

  !/#!!/!4
 >

+%'   ? ' 

>
  -

? '  Asgar Ali 2024.12.20 15:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document