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

KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES PART-TIME LECTURERS' ASSOCIATION versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided
11 September 1995
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 532 · 1995 INSC 558

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

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.

It is stated in the rejoinder-affidavit that a sub-committee has been constituted by the State Government to consider the grievances of the part-time lecturers and the cases of all such persons would be considered by the sub-committee. The Minister in charge also seems to have made a statement to that effect on the floor of the House. If that is so, it would be open to the petitioners to make a representation before the sub-committee along with all other persons similarly situated.

p. 532, margin F

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. T.N.A. Petition dismissed.

p. 532, margin G

(.J.S. VERMA AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.] Service Law: Punjab Re-Organisation Act, 1966 : Ss.2(g) and 88.

p. 533, margin B

Punjab Government National Emergency (Concession Rules, 1965/Punjab Recntitment of Ex-se1vicemen Rules, 1982:

p. 533, margin C

Conditions of Se1vice of Union Te1Titory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966 : Rules 2, 3 and 4.

p. 533, margin C

Ex-servicemen-Re-employed in Services of Union Tenitory of Chandigarh subsequent to 1.11.1966--Claim for benefit of earlier milit01y service regarding seniority, promotion, pension etc. under 1965 Rules-Held, 1965 Rules continued to apply to eligible ex-service Re-employed in Services of Union Tenitory of Chandigarh after 1. 11.1966.

p. 533, margin D

The appellants and the writ petitioners, who were ex- servicemen and were re-employed in the services of the Union Territory of Chandigarh subsequent to 1.1.1966, claimed benefit of the Punjab government National Emergency (Concession) Rules, 1965 for purposes of increments, seniority promotion, pension etc. Though G.O. No. 1023.11.1(7)-87/5025 dated 19.3.1987 issued by the Union Territory Administration, had provided that the benefit of military service in accordance with the 1965 Rules would be available to ex-servicemen, but subsequently, this view was altered in G.O. No. 27/1/3/92 - 18(7)/10935 dated 2.6.1992. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the 1965 Rules did not apply to appointees in services of the Union Territory after 1.1.1966. Aggrieved, the employees tiled the appeals by special leave and the writ petit!::-

p. 533, margin E

It was contended on behalf of the Union Territory that the benefit of the 1965 Rules was available only to the ex-service men employed prior to 1.11.1966, since they were appointed ill' the State of Punjab and carried

p. 533, margin G