w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Dr. G. Sadasivan Nair, Rtd. Professor & Director of School of Legal Studies, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Another v/s Cochin University of Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Kochi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- D TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U01403MH2015PTC268305

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74999KL1963PTC002029

Company & Directors' Information:- A SCHOOL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U80211TN2011PTC079455

Company & Directors' Information:- P & A TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U45208OR2011PTC014269

    WA. Nos. 988 & 904 of 2012

    Decided On, 29 August 2019

    At, High Court of Kerala

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.G. ARUN

    For the Appearing Parties: R. Mahesh Menon, Sr. Gp., A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan (Amicus Curiae), S.P. Aravindakshan Pillai, Asok M. Cherian, SC, A.J. Varghese, Senior Government Pleader, Sreedevi Kylasanath, S. Praveen, Achuth Kylas, S.R.K. Prathap, M.R. Hariraj, V. Philip Mathew, Advocates.



Judgment Text

K. Vinod Chandran, J.

1. We placed these matters together for reason of a common question arising in both the appeals; though the facts differ. The common questions for consideration are, (i) Whether the right to reckon prior service or experience, as qualifying service for pension, accrues at the time of appointment or superannuation? (ii) Whether; when there is a rule permitting reckoning of such service or experience at the time of appointment; it can be altered before retirement?

2. In Writ Appeal No.988 of 2012, the appellant, who was a member of the Bar, was appointed to the School of Legal Studies, Cochin University. At the time of his appointment, as per Rule 25(a) Part III, KSR, experience at the Bar could be reckoned as qualifying service for the purpose of determining pension. This was only subject to the condition that this benefit was available only to a person who is recruited after the age of 25 years, who could add as many years by which he exceeds 25 years of age, but not exceeding the actual years of practice at the Bar and subject to a maximum of ten years. While the appellant was in service, a proviso was added in the following manner.

Provided that the benefit under this sub-rule shall be available only to employees who are recruited when practising at the Bar to posts requiring law qualification and experience at the Bar.

3. The petitioner, who had eight years practice at the Bar, was recruited to the School of Legal Studies, Cochin University. The specific contention taken up by the learned Standing Counsel for the University is that, the appointment to the post of a Teacher in the Cochin University did not require Bar experience and hence, the proviso directly hits the appellant and dis-entitles his pension to be determined, reckoning his experience at the Bar as qualifying service. The learned Single Judge found, on established principles, that it is perfectly open to the Government to unilaterally alter the service conditions of employees during their service and therefore, what is applicable is the rule prevailing as on the date of retirement and not as on the date of entering service.

4. The appellant in Writ Appeal No.904 of 2018, who is working as an Assistant Professor in an aided college, sought for a direction to the respondents to reckon the service rendered by her in an aided school relying on Rule 14 E of Chapter III of KER. The learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, finding that, the appellant is still in service and the writ petition was premature. The appellant could claim pension only as per the existing rule at the time of retirement was the finding.

5. Considering the importance of the question involved, we appointed Adv. Navaneeth Krishnan as Amicus Curiae.

6. The learned counsel, Sri.Mahesh Menon R., appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.988 of 2012 would contend that, all the Universities require Bar experience for a teaching post in the law faculty of the University. Cochin University alone does not require such experience. It is also contended that, at the time of his appointment to the law faculty of the University, the Rule provided for reckoning the Bar experience as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The amendment, being made retrospectively from 1985 does not affect the vested rights of the appellant who was appointed on 07.09.1984.

7. Learned counsel would rely on the decision in Salabuddin Mohammed Yunus v. State of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1905(2)], to contend that an amendment cannot be retrospective, when it interferes with the vested rights of an individual. Pension has been held to be a vested right of an employee, and not a largesse, which he is entitled to as on the date of his appointment. The qualifying service ought to be reckoned, as the rule exists on the date of appointment, since this is a significant factor regulating the decision of a successful candidate in joining a service. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in Bhagat Ram Sharma v. Union of India and Others [ 1988 Supp. SCC 30], to contend that an amendment cannot be retrospective, unless it is expressly stated by the language of the provisions. Though retrospectivity has been conferred on the proviso to the rule, it does not extend to the time of the appellant's appointment, is the contention. It is also argued that, another employee, similarly appointed, has been granted pension despite he having retired after the amendment was introduced in the Rule. Reliance is also placed on the decision in State of Kerala and Others v. Minimole C. and Another [2012 (2) KHC 750] to argue that when a specific rule is violated by the executive Government, which was created by itself, a similarly placed person cannot be singled out and declined relief on the ground of the rule being against him.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Writ Appeal No.904 of 2018 pointed out the Government Order produced by the Amicus and argued that as of now the position is clarified by the Government and she is entitled to reckon the aided school service as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. A subsequent Government Order, G.O.(P) No.50/2019/Fin. Dated 03.05.2019, is also produced, which reiterates that, regular full time Government Service of aided private college staff and aided private school staff prior to their entry in aided private college service and aided private school service shall be counted for pension of such service. Reliance is also placed on the decision of this Court in State of Kerala and Others v. Sabu Mathew and Others [ 2019 (3) KHC 972(DB )].

9. The Amicus, Sri. Navaneeth Krishnan, quite conscious of the duty cast on him, has placed before us a number of decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court. The decision in Government of A.P. and Others v. Syed Yousuddin Ahmed [1997 (7) SCC 24], categorically held that, the power to frame a Rule under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be fettered merely because of the rule position at the time of appointment of an employee. It was categorically held that the legislature under Article 309 of the Constitution and the Governor under the proviso to Article 309 can make laws determining the service conditions of the Government employees and such law can also be retrospectively made. Sangam Spinners v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner I [(2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 391] was placed reliance on to contend that there could be no retrospective amendment interfering with the vested rights of an employee. Grid Corporation of Orissa and Others v. Rasananda Das [2003 (10) SCC 297] was relied on to contend that, alteration of conditions of service cannot be to the disadvantage of the employees by reducing their pay scales or withdrawing any specific benefits.

10. Having gone through the plethora of decisions placed by the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that Sabu Mathew (supra), does not have any relevance to the issue agitated here. It only declares the right as the rule existed and was rendered in a batch of cases where the writ petitioners were retired employees claiming the benefit of reckoning prior service for pension, as the rule permitted at the time of their superannuation. The specific contention herein of the appellant, in Writ Appeal No.904 of 2018, is that even while she continues in service, pension becomes her vested right. However, the dictum in the two decisions of the Supreme Court, placed before us, stand against the said proposition.

11. In Syed Yousuddin Ahmed (supra), the question was whether an incentive award granted to the employee could be reckoned for calculating his emoluments for the purpose of determining pension at the time of retirement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, looking at the pension rules, found that the expression 'emoluments' for the purpose of determining pension meant pay as defined in the fundamental rules. Under the fundamental rules, pay was defined as 'pay other than special pay or granted in view of his personal qualifications, which has been sanctioned for a post held by him substantively or in an officiating capacity or to which he is entitled by reasons of his position in a cadre'(sic). Incentive award was found to be one not coming within the definition of pay. Therein also, employee had taken up a contention that, there was an amendment brought into Rule 31 which could not have a retrospective effect. The Court found that, the question whether Rule 31 was retrospective or not does not arise, since the meaning of the expression emoluments, on the basis of which, the pension of the employee has to be calculated on superannuation has to be determined on the basis of the amended rules, from the date on which it came into force. The incentive award, hence was found to be not one liable to be reckoned for determining pension.

12. More apposite would be the decision in Salabuddin Mohammed Yunus (supra) which was placed before us by the learned counsel for the appellant in one of the cases. The learned Judges there, noticed the following declaration of law from a five Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar [AIR 1971 SC 1409]: “the fundamental right to receive pension according to the rules in force on the date of his retirement accrued to the appellant when he retired from service”(sic). Therein, the question was whether the appellant is entitled to pension in Indian rupees or under the erstwhile Hyderabad State rupees. As on the date of retirement of the appellant, the rule provided for the pension to be reckoned in Indian rupees. Later to his retirement and while the proceedings were pending before Court, there was an amendment made, which found the reference to Indian Ruppee to be a mistake and brought in an amendment. The Court, however, found that, the rule applicable in the matter of determination of pension is that existing at the time of retirement.

13. We are of the opinion that, the argument, in so far as the amendment of the rule cannot be applied retrospectively is not a question arising in these cases. Bhagat Ram Sharma and Sangam Spinners (both supra) are not applicable at all. As we found the Supreme Court has categorically held that the right to pension arises and it crystallizes into a vested right only on the date of superannuation and the right is to obtain pension as the rule exists on that date. In the case of the appellant in Writ Appeal No.904 of 2018 that date has not yet reached. In the said circumstance, we do not think that there is any reason for interference to the decision of the learned Single Judge.

14. As far as Writ Petition No.988 of 2012 is concerned, the Rule

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

applies as on the date of the appellant's retirement and the judgment of the learned Single Judge has to be sustained. The ground that the other Universities provide for Bar experience to be appointed as teaching faculty is irrelevant and inconsequential. As to the reliance placed on Minimole.C(supra), the observations where in the context of the KER, which was styled by the Court itself as a loose bundle of Rules, not complete and comprehensive and the Government issues general orders to make up deficiencies and prevent distortions. There can be no parallel drawn here. Grid Corporation of Orissa(supra) was a case in which the employees in a Project were absorbed by the State Government with protection of their service conditions; which were sought to be varied by the State, later. There is no such impediment on the State in the present case where the amendment brought to the service rules, is in exercise of and invoking the power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 15. We place on record our appreciation for the efforts taken by the Amicus to put the matter in the correct perspective. We reject both the appeals leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

14-07-2020 Rajeev Gandhi Memorial College of Engineering & Technology & Another Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others Supreme Court of India
03-07-2020 Shakti Schools Private Limited Versus M/s. Chirec Public School High Court of for the State of Telangana
01-07-2020 Jana Samparka Samithy, Ernakulam District Committee, Represented by Its Secretary, Cochin & Another Versus State of Kerala, Represented by Chief Secretary To Government, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-06-2020 The Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur & Another Versus Dr. Subroto Roy & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-06-2020 Commissioner of Customs, Cochin Versus Konkan Storage Systems Kochi Pvt. Ltd., South End Reclamation, Mastyapuri, Willingdon Island High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 K.R. Ramesh & Others Versus The Central Bureau of Investigation, ACB, Cochin, Represented by The Superintendent of Police & Another High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 M.P. Singh Rathore Versus Little Flowers Public School, Through Its Manager, Shivaji Park Shahdara, Delhi & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
10-06-2020 C.C. Baby & Another Versus Central Bureau of Investigation, Anticorruption Bureau (ACB), Cochin High Court of Kerala
03-06-2020 M. Karunya Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 The Correspondent, St.Antony's Girls Primary School, Near Head Police Office, Coimbatore & Others Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 C. Thankammu Versus The Head Master, High School, Anthikkad Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
29-05-2020 Lakhamshi Govindji Haria School Versus Kirit Bhupatbhai Bhatt & Another High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
26-05-2020 O.R. Rahul & Others Versus Indian Institute of Space Science & Technology, Represented by Its Registrar, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 The Manager, Devadar Aided Lower Primary School, Puliyil, Malappuram District Versus U. Usha & Others High Court of Kerala
19-05-2020 M.G. Narasimha Rao Versus The Chairman, Board of Governors, Indian Institute of Technology, Mumbai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-05-2020 Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited Versus The Commercial Tax Officer, Enforcement, Roving Squad, Chengalpet & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Yogesh Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through Chief Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
12-05-2020 Score Information Technology Ltd. Versus Central Organisation, Ex-Serviceman Contributory Health Scheme High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Shobha Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya Annexe, Mumbai & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Authorized Signatory Versus The Appellate Authority under Section 48(1) of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act, 1988 & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd V/S The Assistant Commissioner of Labour And Two Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
30-04-2020 Gajanan Shahu Keripale Versus The State of Maharashtra Through The Secretary, School Education & Sports Dept, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
15-04-2020 Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Guntur & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
23-03-2020 Delhi Public School, East Versus Central Board of Secondary Education & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
18-03-2020 Abhighyan Bhattacharya & Another Versus School Of Engineering & Technology & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-03-2020 Indira Cheriya Kadavan Versus V.M. Gangadharan, Manager, Thillankery U.P School, Kannur & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 A. Pandi Selvi Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Secretary, School Education Department, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
16-03-2020 Jayakumar Assistant Professor-Cum-Assistant Director, Centre For Social Exclusion & Inclusion, Cochin University of Science & Technology, Kochi & Others Versus Dr. Jyothi S. Nair & Others High Court of Kerala
16-03-2020 Bhavna Kisan Uradya & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Yogesh Kalyanrao Ghadage And Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-03-2020 Syrma Technology Private Limited, Chennai Versus Powerwave Technologies Sweden AD (in bankruptcy), Rep., by the Bankruptcy Administrator, Niklas Korling & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
12-03-2020 Sundarambal Middle School, Rep.by its Educational Agency,M. Gnanaprakasam Versus The District Elementary Educational Officer, Madurai Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
11-03-2020 Dnyaneshwar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
11-03-2020 K.P. Rahul & Others Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Cochin & Others High Court of Kerala
11-03-2020 K. Dharmaraj & Others Versus Sir M.Ct.Muthaiah Chettiar, Higher Secondary School Trust, Rep. by its President, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-03-2020 Madras Christian College Higher Secondary School, rep. by its Head Master, Chetpet Versus The Secretary to Government, Govt. of Tamilnadu, School Education (C2)Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
06-03-2020 Aided Primary School, rep. by its Secretary, Thazhambadi, Puduchathiram Union, Namakkal District Versus The Director of Elementary Education, College Road, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-03-2020 Dr.(Mrs) Sania Akhtar, Working as Principal Director (Senior Principal Scientist), Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology SARP, Bangalore Versus The Director General, Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, Ministry of Chemical & Fertilizers, Guindy, Chennai & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench
05-03-2020 Dinesh Kumar Rao Versus G.B. Pant University of Agriculture & Technology & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
04-03-2020 Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Limited V/S Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Large Tax Payer Unit-1 Supreme Court of India
04-03-2020 S. Aruputharaj Versus Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Education, Science & Technology, Madras & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-03-2020 Anil Ramdas Pawar V/S Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
28-02-2020 P. Krishnasamy Versus The Government of Tamilnadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, (School Education and Elementary Education Department), Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
28-02-2020 U.M. Aided Primary School, Prakasam Dist. Rep. by its Correspondent Versus State of Andhra Pradesh rep. by its Principal Secretary School Education Depart. & Others High Court of Andhra Pradesh
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
28-02-2020 Vikrant Prataprao Gaikwad & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra Through the Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
26-02-2020 Manager & Correspondent, Madasa E.Deeniyath Aided Elementary School, Ambur Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Nitin Ramesh Khedekar Versus The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
25-02-2020 M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Large Taxpayer Unit-I & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
25-02-2020 Vaishali Raoso Ghadage & Another V/S The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya & Another High Court of Judicature at Bombay
24-02-2020 Raya Xavier (Died) & Another Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
21-02-2020 Secretary, Bairgachi High School Versus State of West Bengal & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
19-02-2020 M.I.E.T. Engineering College, Rep. by its Chairman, Er.A. Mohamed Yunus, Trichy & Others Versus The Registrar, Anna University of Technology, Guindy & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
19-02-2020 V. Jayakumar (Formerly Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathanamthitta), Thiruvananthapuram Versus The High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, Represented by Its Registrar (Subordinate Judiciary) Cochin & Another High Court of Kerala
19-02-2020 The Manager, St. Paul's Higher Secondary School, Kozhinjampara Versus State of Kerala, Represented by The Secretary To Government, General Education Department, Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
18-02-2020 Mohd Shafiq & Others Versus Anuradha Gupta, Director School Education & Another High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
17-02-2020 A.R. Chennimalai Gounder Matriculation Higher Secondary School Represented by the Correspondent S. VAnithamani Versus Union of India Represented by the Secretary Ministry of Environment, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
14-02-2020 The Anna University, Rep. by its Registrar, Anna University Campus, Chennai Versus Mahendra Institute of Technology, Rep. by its Principal, Namakkal & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
13-02-2020 Daniel Oommen Versus National Institute of Technology, Kozhikode, Represented by Its Registrar & Others High Court of Kerala
12-02-2020 Richa Jindal Versus Pec University of Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
10-02-2020 K. Varada Pillai Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, School Education Department, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
10-02-2020 Achal Bisht Versus Chandigarh Institute of Hotel Management & Catering Technology & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
06-02-2020 Navshakti Educational Society Versus Laxman Public School & Others High Court of Delhi
06-02-2020 Mahesh Kumar Sharma Versus The Principal, Vidya Niketan Birla Public School, Pilani District Jhunjhunu & Others High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench
05-02-2020 Rasi Travels & Cargo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai & Another Versus Interglobe Technology Quotient Pvt. Ltd., A company having its Registered Office at Janpath, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
04-02-2020 D. Ramchander Versus The State of Telangana, rep by its Secretary School Education Department Secretariat & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-02-2020 School Management, St. Xavier Public School Korba Versus Raghuvanshi Chandra National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-02-2020 St.John's English Primary School & Another Versus Education Officer, (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur & Another In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
03-02-2020 Syndicate Bank V/S Narayanadri Institute of Science And Technology and Others. Debts Recovery Tribunal Hyderabad
03-02-2020 Sutherland Mortgage Services INC, Cochin, Represented by Achutarama Gupta Nesthala Vizupu, Authorized Signatory, V.K. Gupta Versus The Principal Commissioner, Office of The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central GST & Central Excise, Kochi Commissionerate & Others High Court of Kerala
31-01-2020 V. Saraswathi Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
30-01-2020 M.V. Rangarajan Versus State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary, School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser School India Ltd V/S Union of India and Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-01-2020 Reckitt Benckiser School India Ltd. (Previously SSL-TTK Limited) A Company existing under the Companies Act, 2013, Represented by its Authorized signatory M. Ponraj, Kancheepuram Versus Union of India through the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-01-2020 T.V. Thomas, P.D. Teacher, Govt. U.P. School, Thottumukkom, Kozhikode & Others Versus Joint Secretary, General Education Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
27-01-2020 Muhammed Ameen & Another Versus The Narcotic Control Bureau, Cochin, Represented by Its Intelligence Officer, Through Its Special Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam High Court of Kerala
24-01-2020 G. Maria Antony Michael Versus The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its Secretary, Department of School Education, Fort St.George, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
24-01-2020 Navanirman Public School Versus District Employment Officer, Kochi & Others High Court of Kerala
23-01-2020 E. Saral Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-01-2020 Divyabala Vidyalayam High School EM V/S The State of Telangana HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
17-01-2020 Masaddar Ali Laskar, Officer Surveyor, Office of the Director GDC, Assam Nagaland, GDC Versus The Union of India, Through the Secretary, To the Government of India, Department of Science & Technology, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
14-01-2020 N.K. Mohanachandran Versus CBI/SPE, Cochin Rep. by Its Standing Counsel, High Court of Kerala High Court of Kerala
13-01-2020 The Principal , Global Institute of Fashion Technology (GIFT) & Another Versus Bikramadittya Sai & Others West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Kolkata
10-01-2020 P. Subramani Versus State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Govt., Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-01-2020 K. Shobana Versus The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Principal Secretary to Government, Department of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-01-2020 Rafi Ahmed & Others Versus The Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigation Agency Cochin (Camp at Chennai) High Court of Judicature at Madras
07-01-2020 Commissioner of Income Tax, "Aaykar Bhavan" Versus Gigabyte Technology (India) Ltd. In the High Court of Bombay at Goa
06-01-2020 Surinder Nath Kesar Versus Board of School Education & Others Supreme Court of India
06-01-2020 Cochin Port Trust, Represented by Its Chairman & Others Versus Sea Consortium Pvt. Ltd., Duxton Hill, Singapore, Represented By Their Local Agents, Forbes Gokak Ltd., Patvolk Division, Cochin & Another High Court of Kerala
06-01-2020 Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, New Delhi Versus Shibu M. Job, Now Working as Director (Postal Life Insurance), Kolkatha & Others High Court of Kerala
06-01-2020 Kothandaraman High School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Uthukottai Versus The Director of School Education, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 St. Joseph's Boy's Anglo Indian Higher Secondary School, Rep. by its Correspondent, Coonoor, Nilgiris Versus The Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration & Water Supply, The Government Secretariat, Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
03-01-2020 I. Sundararajan Versus Director, Tamil Nadu School Education, Chennai & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
03-01-2020 Balakrishna Sales Corporation V/S Commissioner of Central Tax & Central Excise, Cochin Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Bangalore
02-01-2020 A. Mary Lithiya Nithilakumari Versus The Joint Director of School Education, (Higher Secondary), Chennai & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
26-12-2019 Saiyed Murad Shirazi Versus Commissioner of School & Others High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
19-12-2019 Noorjahan Versus Kalamassery Municipal Council, Represented by Secretary, Cochin High Court of Kerala
19-12-2019 Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha, Aurangabad, through its Secretary, namely, Yogesh Vinayakrao Patil Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Mantralaya & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
19-12-2019 Dnyanganga Shikshan Sanstha & Another Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Chief Secretary, School Education Department & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad