I HAVE APPLIED THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL TO ANOTHER PSU.MY PSU HAVE FORWARDED MY APPLICATION AND ISSUED NOC ON BEING SELECTED AFTER WRITEN EXAM AND INTERVIEW. THE NEW PSU ISSUED OFFER LETTER DATED 28/12/2006 TO ALL THE SELECTED CANDIDATES. I GOT THE LETTER AND SUBMITTED MY RESIGNATION ON 03/01/2007 AND SAME HAS UNDERGONE THE PROCEDURES OF RESIGNATION AND THE PSU RELEIVED ON 12/01/2007. AFTER USING THE JOINING TIME PERMITTED UNDER TRANSFER RULES- 6 DAYS -JOINED ON 18/01/2007. 

THE NEW PSU HAVE SHIFTED MY INCREMENT AND ALSO HAVE NOT GIVEN ME FITMENT BENEFIT CITING THAT I HAVE REPORTED ON 18.01.2007 AND AS PER RULES ONLY CANDIDATES AS ON 31.12.2006 WILL BE ELEGIBLE FOR FITMENT BENEFIT.

I HAVE QUOTED THE RULE -FRSR AND CCS PENSION WHICH STATES THAT MY SERVICE IS CONTINOUES AS I HAVE APPLIED THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL.

I HAVE ALSO QUOTED Fundamental Rights-Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment  ALSO stating that procedure delay of the PSU cannot be penalising me for not making me eligible to join the new psu. as i had to submit the proper relieving letter form earlier psu as per rules-and conditons of offer and it takes time.

kinldy help me in this regard

in the light of 

Article 418 (b) [Now Rule 26(2) of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,     
     1972] elaborates the Word “resignation “and lays down that It will not be
      taken as resignation of Public service. It runs as follows:
(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or parts, is not a resignation of public service”


V.K. RAMA RAO AND ORS.Vs.RESPONDENT: NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE AND RURALDEVELOPMENT THROUGH DATE OF JUDGMENT 14/12/1989 the Honorable Supreme Court 


Ved Prakash Chaddha vs Union Of India, Through         Secretary, Ministry Of Defence (Finance), New Delhi on 15/5/1999 JUDGMENT Onkareshwar Bhatt, 

KINLDY HELP ME

Dear Sir,

I dug a bore well in my patta land. My borewell is located at 40 meters from Road Paromboke land. Some of the people in the village would like to dug a borewell for the supply of water for public at 40 meters distance from my borewell. Though they found other borewell points, intentionally, they would like to dug borewll at 40 meters distance of my borewell. They already have a good borewell which spplies sufficient water to the villagers. It is a voilation under Walta Act. WALTA act will prevent me to put another borewell in my own land within 250 meters. As per the Andhra pradesh WALTA act, distance between two borewells is 250 meters. will it holds good even if anyboy try to dig a borewell for the public purpose or there any expemtions for public borewells. Please provide legal help 

kindly provide supreme court and gujrat high court judgements primarily, which infer that -- 

"A marriage which is already annulled by any competent court, cannot be decreed with a 'divorce'...."

awaiting
legal.help

an officer was punished for the deliquency of negligence for no fault of him.

dear brothers

I request you to kindly provide me with information about Judgments, Honorable High Court or Honorable Supereme Court, wherein a Case was dismissed because the Evidence of the Complainant was not taken on Oath for over the time period prescribed for Punishment for a certain crime

For instance where cognizance has been taken on a offence for defamation and where the punishment if convicted is 2 years, and if the Complainant fails to give his evidence on oath for more time than the period of 2 years which is the period of punishment for the accused to be undergone if convicted.

please provide me with information wherein any criminal case (minor Offences) has been dismissed by any Honorable court for the above reason would be of great help.

Regards
fdf2007in

P & H HC or Hon. Supreme Court which support -
Punjab agricultural produce marketing act 1961
Punjab agricultural produce marketing Rules 1962 

whether police can investigate and call person if any complaint of non cognizable offence is received by the police authority. as per section 155(2) of Cr PC which reads as under 
" no police officer shall investigate a non cognizable case without the order of a Magistate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial"

Can any body cite any judgement to the effect that the standard of proof required in an arbitral proceeding need not be the same as in a Court ? 

whether a petitioner wife be filed a petition for areares of maintainance for a period of 2 years at once,or not.

  Since the proviso reads as fallows; no warrent shall be issued for recovery of any amount under this section unless application be made to the court to leavy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it become due  

In fact, in a case like the present where the question is of purity of public administration at a time when moral and ethical values are fast deteriorating and there seems to be a crisis of character in public life, this court should regard as its bounden duty – a duty owed by it to the society – to examine carefully whenever it is alleged that a prosecution for an offence of corruption or criminal breach of trust by a person holding high public office has been wrongly withdrawn and it should not matter at all as to how many judges in the High Court or the lower Court have been party to the granting of such consent for withdrawal. .     	 (1987 AIR  SC at PP 890)

It is a well-established proposition of law that a criminal prosecution, if otherwise justifiable and based upon adequate evidence does not become vitiated on account of mala fides or political vendetta of the first informant or the complainant.                                          (1987 AIR  SC at PP 891)
The criminal process in India is quite tardy and slow moving and as it is, it takes considerable time for a prosecution to ultimately come to an end and if a requirement were super-imposed that no prosecution shall be launched against a person holding high political office under an earlier regime without first setting up a Commission of Enquiry and the Commission coming to a prima facie conclusion that such person has committed acts which would constitute offences, the entire criminal process would be reduced to a mockery because the Commission of Enquiry itself might go on for years and after the inquiry is concluded the prosecution will start where the entire evidence will have to be led again and it would be subject to cross examination followed by lengthy arguments.    (1987 AIR  SC at PP 892)
When a First Information Report relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is lodged in a POLICE Station under S. 154 or an order is made by a Magistrate directing the POLICE to investigate a non-cognizable case under S. 155, the POLICE is bound to investigate the offence alleged to have been committed. The powers of the POLICE in regard to investigation and the procedure to be followed by them in such investigation are set out in Ss. 157 to 172. Section 173, sub-s (1) casts an obligation on the POLICE to complete the investigation without unnecessary DELAY……...
                                                  (1987 AIR  SC at PP 893)
The magistrate is therefore given the power to structure and control the DISCRETION of the POLICE. ……….The DISCRETION of the POLICE to prosecute is thus ‘cabined and confined’ and, subject to appeal of revision, and the Magistrate is made the final arbiter on this question. 
                                                         (1987 AIR  SC at PP 894)
“The even course of criminal justice cannot be thwarted by the Executive however high the accused, however sure the Government fells a case s false, however unpalatable the continuance of the prosecution to the powers-that-be who wish to scuttle court justice because of hubris, affection of other noble or ignoble consideration.” Once the prosecution is launched, its relentless course cannot be halted except on sound considerations germane to public justice.                             (1987 AIR  SC at PP 894)
the Public Prosecutor(AIR 1938 PC 266) is, in a larger sense, also an officer of the court and that he is bound to assist the court with his fairly considered view and the court is entitled to have the benefit of the FAIR exercise of his function. It has also to be appreciated that in this country the scheme of the administration of criminal justice is that the primary responsibility of prosecuting serious offences (which are classified as cognizable offences) is on the executive authorities. Once information of the commission of any such offence reaches the constituted authorities, the investigation including collection of the requisite evidence, and the prosecution for the offence with reference to such evidence, are the functions of the executive.                            (1987 AIR  SC at PP 895)