Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

DILBAG SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Decided
8 May 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 38 · 1995 INSC 344
Also cited as
  • (1995) 4 SCC 495 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 39, margin C

We have heard the counsel on both sides. The Government, exercising its power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, issued U.P. Non-Technical (Class II) Services (Reservation of Vacancies for Demobilised Officers) Rules, 1973. The same Rules were reissued in 1980. These Rules would be applicable to officers of Short Commissioned or Commissioned Officer recruited to the army between November 1, 1962 to January 10, 1968; and on December 3, 1971 and released at any time thereafter. Admittedly, the appellant was commissioned on September 22, 1974 and was released on November 30, 1979. Advertisement was made for recruitment of Deputy Collectors on May 2, 1979. The appellant had applied for and was selected as a Deputy Collector. He sought for seniority w.e.f. September 22, 1974 in terms of Rule 5 of 1980 Rules. Since it was not given, he filed W.P. No. 2469/89 and the High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition on April 25, 1994. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 39, margin C

It is not in dispute that the Rules have been given retrospective effect and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of seniority in accordance with Rule 5 of 1980 Rules. It was contended in the High Court that since 1973 Rules were withdrawn w.e.f. August 6, 1978, the appellant is not entitled to the benefit when he was recruited in the year 1979. That appears to be obviously a mistaken stand taken by the Government, since 1980 Rules have been given retrospective effect w.e.f. 6.8.1978. Thereby even 1973 Rules must be deemed to be in operation till 1980 Rules were framed afresh. As per the memorandum, Ann.II, which is now made part of the record, the Government have clarified that all benefits, except the reservation, were withdrawn by the notification issued w.e.f. August 6, 1978. A In other words, even the right of reservation was maintained during interregnum. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to the seniority as per 1980 Rules.

pp. 39–40, margin F

The appeal is accordingly allowed with all consequential benefits. No costs. T.N.A. Appeal allowed.

p. 40