Service Matter CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Judgments Supreme Court of India

Posted on July 30, 2023 by MediumPulse Medium Pulse News

Service Matter CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Judgments Supreme Court of India

1  English           മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer
DR. V. R. SANAL KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 772
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR
thereon, by the High Court of Kerala. As per the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the challenge against the order dated 30.09.2008 of the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 653 of 2007. 2. Compendiously stated, the case that culminated in the impugned, the inquiry was conducted ex-parte and the copy of the Inquiry Report holding the charges as proved submitted by the Inquiry Officer, was sent to him. 4. Meanwhile, the appellant unsuccessfully preferred two Original Applications before the central administrative tribunal viz., O.A. Nos. 150
Date of decision : 12-05-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6301/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
2T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Vs K. KANAGARAJ & ORS. – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 456
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,MANOJ MISRA
as a Junior Engineer, before the acquisition of an engineering degree, would be counted. The Appellants, thus, approached the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CAT’) in O.A. No. 355/2008, challenging the decision of the Puducherry administration to was alleged to have resulted in denying promotion to the Junior Engineers, who joined the service as Degree holders. Procedural History: Before the central administrative tribunal 7. The CAT, vide an order dated 20.11.2009, partly found in favour of the Appellants and opined that the
Date of decision : 08-05-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3466/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
3SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. ETC Vs VIJAY D. KASBE AND ORS. ETC – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 246
Judge Name: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,PANKAJ MITHAL
recorded by a Tribunal – However, in the present case, the central administrative tribunal reached diametrically opposite findings of fact, in two different sets of cases filed by employees holding similar supervisory posts, both of which cannot co-exist. Service Law – Persons in the civil including allowances, is a service matter. The respondents herein, at least during the period from 1988 till the year 2006, were either holders of civil posts under the Union or appointed to the civil services of the Union. This is why the respondents approached the central administrative tribunal , for
Date of decision : 18-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2911/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
4M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. Vs NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18
Judge Name: SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH
DRAT can be directed to be considered by other Tribunals like central administrative tribunal , Armed Forces Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal within the State. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stop-gap arrangement, we request the
Date of decision : 17-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
5  English           ગુજરાતી – Gujarati Disclaimer
DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs SMT. MAGI H DESAI – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 660
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR
thereafter extended from time to time, however, with break of few days. The original applicant thereafter filed Original Application No. 32/1987 before the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The said OA was partly allowed vide order dated
Date of decision : 24-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1787/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
6THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Vs KAMLESH RANI BHATLA – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 676
Judge Name: ANIRUDDHA BOSE,KRISHNA MURARI
the legality of a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which in substance sustains an order of the central administrative tribunal allowing the respondent to withdraw her resignation and permit her to re-join duty. At the material point of time, the respondent was working as an
Date of decision : 23-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1927/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
7UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs PARASHOTAM DASS – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 598
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,B.V. NAGARATHNA
not in routine interfere with the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Article 226 seeking to exercise the jurisdiction akin to say a central administrative tribunal . Our observations: 24. We have given thought to the matter, keeping in mind the last aspect emphasized by the learned
Date of decision : 21-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/447/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
8ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 731
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI
expeditiously but would also provide to the persons covered by the Administrative Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their grievances.” 5. Section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides that the Central Government shall establish an administrative tribunal known as the “ Central Administrative Tribunal ”3 to adjudicate disputes concerning the recruitment and conditions of service of persons in connection with posts under the Union or All-India Service,4 including disputes with respect to remuneration, pension, tenure, leave, and disciplinary matters.5 In terms of Section 4(2
Date of decision : 21-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6805/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
9UNION OF INDIA Vs SANJIV CHATURVEDI – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 59
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
and has set aside order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Chairman, central administrative tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi by which the learned Principal Bench of the Tribunal transferred Original Application (OA) No. 331/109/2020 filed by the original writ petitioner, from the Allahabad passed by the Chairman, central administrative tribunal , New Delhi by observing that there is no requirement of law that a policy decision must, necessarily, be challenged before the Principal Bench and that there is no provision under the Act, 1985 that a challenge to a policy decision can be
Date of decision : 03-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1587/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
10UNION OF INDIA Vs INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 529
Judge Name: AJAY RASTOGI,BELA M. TRIVEDI
)No. 1006 of 2008, whereby the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2228 of 2006. 2. The respondent-Indian Navy
Date of decision : 22-02-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8329/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
11  English           ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada Disclaimer
NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION & ORS Vs DIPTI DEODHARE – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 369
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,HIMA KOHLI
. 10867/2021, by which the High Court, while allowing the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and setting aside order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing O.A. No. 170 High Court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the central administrative tribunal dismissing the O.A. and has modified the order dated 12.02.2019 issued by the NTRO and has directed that the same be held
Date of decision : 17-02-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/413/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
12SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 931
Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
herein was allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Mumbai dated 19th July, 2002, whereby the Original Application filed by the Appellant herein was allowed, has been set aside. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are communicated to the Appellant by way of letter dated 23rd February, 2000. 3.4. Aggrieved by the Respondents’ rejection of his claim for family pension, the Appellant filed an Original Application, being O.A. No. 2166 of 2001, before the central administrative tribunal , Mumbai, praying that the order
Date of decision : 17-01-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/386/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
13UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs SUBRATA NATH – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 605
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI
before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the central administrative tribunal . In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its
Date of decision : 23-11-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7939/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
14AROON PURIE Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 311
Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI
should not be initiated against said officer “for sexual harassment of a woman at work place” – The said officer filed response and thereafter disciplinary authority ordered penalty – Order imposing penalty upheld by the central administrative tribunal and also by High Court – In the meantime
Date of decision : 31-10-2022 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1853/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
15UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs MUNSHI RAM – [2022] 10 S.C.R. 1135
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the respective private respondents herein and has set aside the orders passed by the central administrative tribunal and thereafter directed the appellants – Northern Railway to count 50% of their service as Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption then approached the central administrative tribunal with O.A. No. 219/2016 praying for further consequential relief of grant of pensionary/retirement benefits. It was their case before the CAT that the total service of each of the applicants rendered prior to their absorption in the Railways
Date of decision : 31-10-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2811/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
16UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs G.R. MEGHWAL – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 481
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
held on 28.12.2010 to consider the grant of NFU in SAG. The respondent was not found eligible by the DPC on the ground that in the year 2007-2008, his ACR was “Good”. Therefore, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 430 of 2011 before the central administrative tribunal . 2.3 Before the Tribunal, it
Date of decision : 23-09-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2021/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
17R. D. KAUSHAL AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 418
Judge Name: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
at Delhi, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8503/2010, thereby setting aside the judgment dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the learned CAT”) in Original Application No. 3663/2009. 3. The facts leading to the
Date of decision : 14-09-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6573/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
18THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR Vs B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 351
Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
to the State of Andhra Pradesh. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.] A B C D E F G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R. 10. The Respondent filed an application being O.A No.209/2016 before the central administrative tribunal at
Date of decision : 14-09-2022 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/1565/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
19DEEPIKA SINGH Vs CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 557
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA
A B C D E F G H 557 DEEPIKA SINGH v. central administrative tribunal AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022) AUGUST 16, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND A S BOPANNA, JJ.] Service Law: Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972: r. 43 – Maternity leave – Entitlement to with. Familial relationships may take DEEPIKA SINGH v. central administrative tribunal AND OTHERS A B C D E F G H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of
Date of decision : 16-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5308/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
20MEHMOOD PRACHA Vs CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 20
Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY
A B C D E F G H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. MEHMOOD PRACHA v. central administrative tribunal (Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2020) AUGUST 10, 2022 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – ss. 14, 17 – The Contempt of Courts (C.A.T) Rules Court has noticed all that took place on 18.03.2020. On the said day, different submissions were made. On the one hand, the Additional Solicitor General told the Tribunal that the trial may not be necessary in view of the judgment in MEHMOOD PRACHA v. central administrative tribunal A B C D
Date of decision : 10-08-2022 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/892/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
21S. KULDEEP SINGH & ANR Vs S. PRITHPAL SINGH – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 100
Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY
counsel further relied on Mohammad Ansari v. Union of India & Ors5., “35. At this stage, it is necessary to recapitulate that during the pendency of the matter before the High Court, the central administrative tribunal had passed the final order on 5-11-2012 in favour of the appellant. Be that as
Date of decision : 02-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/81/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
22THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI Vs MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS. – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 979
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY
to the judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 in the WP No. 675/2016 whereby the Division Bench has interfered with the order passed by the central administrative tribunal (for short “CAT”) and granted relief to the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) whose termination order dated 24.10.2015 was 24.10.2015. The Bhillai Steel Plant also ordered for forfeiture of all the service benefits of the respondent no.1 such as CPF, Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment etc. 4. The respondent no.1 moved the central administrative tribunal (CAT), to challenge the termination but his OA 1115/2015 came to
Date of decision : 11-07-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4990/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
23UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHARVAN KUMAR – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 445
Judge Name: DINESH MAHESHWARI,KRISHNA MURARI
21.06.2013 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench (‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 293 of 2011 and has also held that the remitted proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent were rendered nullity, for having not been concluded within the time limit fixed by the
Date of decision : 06-07-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1942/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
24MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 299
Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY
Ranganath Misra, J. are concerned, I express my entire agreement with the view taken by him.” 17. As is seen, Justice Bhagwati made the above observation in the case where the Supreme Court was concerned with the central administrative tribunal [in short, “CAT”] where the volume of litigation is
Date of decision : 18-05-2022 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/433/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
25BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. Vs SANDEEP CHOUDHARY & ORS. – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1002
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 159 of 2009 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the said application preferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original applicant and directed the appellant herein – BSNL to consider
Date of decision : 28-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8717/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
26UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs MUKESH KUMAR MEENA – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
dated 20.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCWP No. 1542 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein – original writ petitioner and has set aside the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 155 of 2014 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application preferred by the respondent herein – original applicant (hereinafter referred to as “original applicant”) and has directed to “Other Taxes”. According to the original applicant, he was entitled for grace marks in the subject of “Other Taxes”,but the same were not given to him as he was treated qualified in the category of Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, it gave cause to him to approach the central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur
Date of decision : 28-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3468/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
27UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs M. DURAISAMY – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 51
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (OA) No. 357 of 2012 by which the Tribunal allowed the said OA and modified the punishment from dismissal/ removal from service to compulsory retirement, the Union of India and Petition No. 33303 of 2013 dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.03.2013 in O.A. No. 357 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench in O.A. No. 357/2012
Date of decision : 19-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2665/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
28UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SHRI C.R. MADHAVA MURTHY & ANR. – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 22
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA
at par with their juniors. Thereafter, the original writ petitioners preferred O.A. Nos. 813 & 814/2014 before the central administrative tribunal , Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru. By the common order dated 04.01.2016, the Tribunal rejected the said applications. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied
Date of decision : 06-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2087/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
29B.S. MURTHY & ORS Vs A. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,HEMANT GUPTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT
those writ petitions and set aside the order2 of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) in a batch of ten original applications. The CAT’s order had allowed those applications and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and
Date of decision : 15-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3968/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
30SK NAUSAD RAHAMAN & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 591
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,VIKRAM NATH
………………………………………………………. 26* A Facts 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dealt with a batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the central administrative tribunal on the issue of the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers1 2018 was challenged before the central administrative tribunal . The challenge was upheld by the Tribunal. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, reversed the decision of the Tribunal. B Relevant circulars and notifications 9. In order to appreciate the
Date of decision : 10-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1243/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
31THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs NARENDER KUMAR & ORS – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 480
Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,BELA M. TRIVEDI
, appellant-authority sought application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme upon the ground that the same become operative from 01.09.2008 – Respondents successfully filed application before the central administrative tribunal – Appellant authority approached High Court – High Court claim the second ACP benefit had accrued to them earlier, they should have been granted the benefit of second ACP. Consequently, they approached the central administrative tribunal (CAT) by filing original applications5. Proceedings before CAT 6. Before CAT, the employee- respondents contended that
Date of decision : 08-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1880/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
32UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 764
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,M.M. SUNDRESH
delivered by M. M. SUNDRESH, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the respondents before the High Court and the central administrative tribunal , raising a challenge on two grounds, namely: – i. A voluntary retiree cannot seek promotion as a matter of right sans rules governing. ii. a mere delay in strength was increased to 472. 3. The respondents filed separate applications before the central administrative tribunal (CAT). Despite holding that the post of JAG-I is neither wholly promotional nor an upgradation, the applications were dismissed on the premise that a conjoint reading of Rule 4 and 7
Date of decision : 08-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/517/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
33MUKESH KUMAR & ANR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 644
Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
appellants 1 Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646. A B C D E F G H 647 filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal , Patna, which was dismissed on 19.07.2017. A writ petition was filed before the High Court of Patna questioning the correctness of
Date of decision : 24-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1620/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
34  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SUNIL KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1111
Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY
Misra, M.M. Punchhi and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.)] by passing the following order: “1. Special leave granted. 2. The short point raised in this appeal is as to whether the central administrative tribunal was right in holding that the appellant did not belong to the Lohar community which has now been
Date of decision : 21-02-2022 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/1052/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
35OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. Vs THE PRESIDENT, OIL FIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 376
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
of Rattan Lal Sharma (supra) and Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. (supra) arose out of admitted fact. In the case of Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad (supra) it was the limitation question which went to the root of the matter. This case arose out of a proceeding before the central administrative tribunal . Point
Date of decision : 04-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1033/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
36THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. Vs K. SUDHEESH KUMAR & ORS. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 720
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA
. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2019passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) No.171 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the said original petition (OP) and set aside the order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam as GP of Rs.5400 as per clause 8.1. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein approached the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench and prayed to continue the GP of Rs.6600 as per the earlier order dated 17.11.2009 and not to make any recovery. A decision of the Madras High Court was
Date of decision : 28-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/442/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
37STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs R.D. SHARMA AND ANR. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 707
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,BELA M. TRIVEDI
, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide the order dated 24th June, 2011. The aggrieved respondent filed an O.A. being No. 1142/2011 before the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh on 27th
Date of decision : 27-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/474/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
38THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Vs A NISHANTH GEORGE – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 289
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA
LARSGESS Scheme was scrutinised by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a decision dated 27 April 2016 in Kala Singh v. Union of India1. In that case there was a challenge to an order of the central administrative tribunal (“CAT”) by which it dismissed the original
Date of decision : 25-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/294/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
39UNION OF INDIA Vs ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 259
Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,C.T. RAVIKUMAR
, and is set aside – central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – rr. 6 , r. 4(5)(a) & (b) – Constitution of India, Arts. 226 & 227. [2022] 16 S.C.R. 259 259 A B C D E F G H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Once the High jurisdictional High Court to exercise the power of judicial review qua the order of transfer passed by the Chairman of the central administrative tribunal at New Delhi in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act’. 3. The Appellant assails the final judgment and order dated 29.10.2021 passed by
Date of decision : 06-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/197/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
40UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs MANJU ARORA & ANR. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 591
Judge Name: R. SUBHASH REDDY,HRISHIKESH ROY
as well. 4. The withdrawal of ACP benefit for the two respondents and one other was challenged before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 2673/2002 (Suman Lata Bhatia), OA No. 2674/2002 (Veena Arora) and OA No. 3021/2002 (Manju Arora
Date of decision : 03-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7027/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
41SUNNY ABRAHAM Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 892
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Court is set aside and that of the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal is restored subject to certain modification on operational part of it. The proceeding against the appellant relates to an incident alleged to have taken place in the year 1998 and the proceeding was initiated the enquiry officer and appellant was served with both the reports and advice of the CVC. Till the time of filing of the O.A. No. 1157 of 2014 before the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal (CAT), the appellant instituted several proceedings, mainly on procedural irregularities
Date of decision : 17-12-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7764/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
42BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 882
Judge Name: R. SUBHASH REDDY,HRISHIKESH ROY
respondent – Petitions dismissed by central administrative tribunal – Order set aside by High Court, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication – Tribunal ordered respondent’s regularization – Writ petition filed by appellant, dismissed by High Court – Review Petition – Dismissed – On appeal, held F G H 885 2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Surendra Patri, learned counsel representing the respondent (original applicant before the central administrative tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”)). 3. The challenge here is to the
Date of decision : 14-12-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7707/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
43  English           ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs GOURI DEVI – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 37
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition No. 7791 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal passed in T.A. No.14 of the order of the High Court, the writ petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack, which was registered as T.A. No. 14 of 2014. By the judgment and order dated 28.11.2019, the learned Tribunal disposed of T.A. No. 14 of 2014 and directed the appellant to re
Date of decision : 18-11-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6910/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
44MOHD. MUSTAFA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 163
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,SANJIV KHANNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI
. Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) (hereinafter referred to “DGP (HoPF)”), the Appellants filed original applications before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. By an order dated 17.01.2020, the Tribunal set aside the (hereinafter referred to as “UPSC”) and the State of Punjab to conduct selection for the post of DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab afresh. The judgement of the central administrative tribunal was challenged in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the UPSC, the State of Punjab and Mr. Dinkar Gupta. Mr
Date of decision : 16-11-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6905/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
45SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 835
Judge Name: AJAY RASTOGI,ABHAY S. OKA
out of the select panel dated 29th June, 1983 of Western Command in the year 1983 and after rounds of litigation before central administrative tribunal /High Court, the matter has travelled to this Court to determine the inter se seniority of such persons who, although selected in June 1983 in level is not meted out in OM dated 3rd July, 1986. 13. To sum up the situation, central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, in dealing with the situation as emerged afore-stated, in its order dated 26th May, 2008, observed in paras 23 and 24 as under: “23. From Annexure ‘O’, we can gather
Date of decision : 26-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6460/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
46  English           മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS AND ANR – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 396
Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
the officers claim allocation. [Para 42][428-G] 20. In terms of Rule 6 of the central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an application before the central administrative tribunal is required to be filed where the UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS A B C D E F G H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. applicant is posted for the time being or the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen. The applicant in her Original Application has not laid any foundation as to how the Ernakulam Bench of the central administrative tribunal will have the
Date of decision : 22-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11480/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
47UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs ILMO DEVI & ANR. – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1158
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
sought regularization – Claim rejected by central administrative tribunal , though with certain directions – Writ petitions filed by both the parties – High Court inter alia directed the appellants to reformulate regularization policy and to take a decision to sanction the post in a phased manner the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9167 of 2007 and CWP No.6854 of 2008 by which the High Court has modified the judgment and order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal in O.A. No.886/CH/2005 and consequently has
Date of decision : 07-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
48AMIT SACHAN & ANR. Vs BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW & ORS. – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 29
Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA
names of members who have casted their vote in last three years i.e., 2018, 2019 and 2020. (III) The Central Bar Association, Lucknow Bar Association, State Public Services Tribunal Bar Association, central administrative tribunal Bar Association and Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association are
Date of decision : 24-09-2021 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/15349/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
49UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DALBIR SINGH – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 800
Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the central administrative tribunal . In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into
Date of decision : 21-09-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5848/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
50UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1161
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY
Railways (Field Office/Zonal Railways) made claim for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (“CSSS”)/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service (“RBSSS”)/ central administrative tribunal (“CAT”) – Held: There is no continued history of, 1971, the Central Secretariat Stenographers are governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules, 2010 and the Stenographers in the central administrative tribunal are governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with which the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the
Date of decision : 31-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/914/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
51COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs RAJ KUMAR – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 4
Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,S. RAVINDRA BHAT
various orders, which were impugned in separate proceedings by the candidates, the central administrative tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the candidates, upholding their pleas, and quashing the orders of the Screening Committees. All the orders of the CAT were impugned by the appellant
Date of decision : 25-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4960/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
52NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 79
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HRISHIKESH ROY
and order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the Court upheld the common final order dated 24.08.2017 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short] and dismissed the petitions filed by the North Delhi
Date of decision : 03-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4578/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
53DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. Vs SEEMA KAPOOR – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 517
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HEMANT GUPTA
considered as a departmental candidate for appointment by way of direct recruit – Orders passed by the High Court and central administrative tribunal , set aside. Jai Prakash Wadhwa & Ors. vs Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. & Anr. (1997) 11 SCC 174 – referred to. Case Law Reference (1997) 11 SCC 174 present appeal is to an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 20.2.2019 affirming the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi on 5.9.2018 whereby an original application (OA) filed by the respondent herein was allowed, holding that she was entitled to age
Date of decision : 22-07-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4461/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
54  English           ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 13
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench1 dated 13 March 2019. The 1 “Tribunal” A B C D E F G H 15 Tribunal had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacancies for 2015 by reconvening a meeting of the
Date of decision : 05-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/821/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
55UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs P. BALASUBRAHMANAYAM – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 160
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY
), ADG(Vig-II) & ADG(Vig-III), Postal Directorate. 7. Guard Filed. Sd/- (P.H. PILLAI) SECTION OFFICER(VIG)” 3. In this background, the respondent assailed the Memo by filing OA No. 421 of 2015 before the central administrative tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The
Date of decision : 04-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3592/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
56SACHIN KUMAR & ORS. Vs DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ORS. – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1073
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
irregularities in the examination – An FIR was registered at Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) u/s. 13(1)(d) of Corruption Act r/w. s.120B of IPC – Dy. CM recommended for the cancellation of exam and a notification was issued for cancellation of exam – central administrative tribunal set aside the and novel attempts to suborn the legitimacy of recruitment processes have come to the fore. The Delhi High Court in the present case upheld the view of the central administrative tribunal (“Tribunal”) that the cancellation of the entire process was invalid but it confined the relief to six
Date of decision : 03-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/639/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
57THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (INDIA GROUP) Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 799
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT
tenure and age limits for members and chairpersons of 19 tribunals (including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; Securities Appellate Tribunal, Competition Commission of India, CESTAT, Railway Claims Tribunal, central administrative tribunal , Debt Recovery Tribunal, Debt Recoveries Appellate
Date of decision : 12-02-2021 | Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/2219/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
58MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 246
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT
of the Advocates from being considered for appointment as judicial members in a majority of Tribunals by the 2020 Rules. It was argued that in respect of seven tribunals (such as central administrative tribunal , Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, etc
Date of decision : 27-11-2020 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/804/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
59THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Vs HEEM SINGH – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 951
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDIRA BANERJEE
the limitations on its power of judicial review. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India7, a two judge Bench of this Court had to assess whether the central administrative tribunal had exceeded its power of judicial review by overturning the findings of a departmental enquiry by re-appreciating the
Date of decision : 29-10-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3340/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
60  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
RAMA NAND AND ORS. Vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – [2020] 6 S.C.R. 19
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,AJAY RASTOGI,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues.” [Para 18][27-F] 3. The benefits of ACP Scheme cannot be held applicable to the appellants and consequently the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the central administrative tribunal . [Para RTOs would amount to a promotion or whether it was a mere reorganisation and the appellants were entitled to the ACP separately in terms of the ACP Scheme. 3. The appellants filed OA No. 983/1995 before the central administrative tribunal (“CAT”), Principal Bench, New Delhi and succeeded in
Date of decision : 06-08-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5829/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
61NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs KAVINDER AND OTHERS – [2020] 6 S.C.R. 13
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDU MALHOTRA,K.M. JOSEPH
post-graduate degree or diploma in social work/ Labour Welfare/ Industrial Relations/ Personnel Management/ Any other allied subjects – Respondent-candidate declared ineligible for the post – central administrative tribunal held the candidate as eligible for appointment to the post as he jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, affirmed a judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal at its Principal Bench at New Delhi, by which the first respondent A B C D E F G H 15 was held to be qualified for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare Superintendent
Date of decision : 21-07-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/232/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
62  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NISHA PRIYA BHATIA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2020] 10 S.C.R. 596
Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI
order of compulsory retirement of the appellant, thereby reversing the order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the central administrative tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 50 of 2010 quashing the order of compulsory retirement and directing reinstatement of the appellant back in service
Date of decision : 24-04-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2365/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
63  English           മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs M. V. MOHANAN NAIR – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 851
Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY
delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant batch of appeals have been filed assailing the orders of various High Courts dismissing petitions filed by the appellants, thereby upholding decisions rendered by different Benches of central administrative tribunal granting financial Pal was working in the post of Photocopier w.e.f. 12.10.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The post of Photocopier is an isolated post. Upon introduction of the ACP Scheme in the year 1999, on completion of twelve years
Date of decision : 05-03-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2016/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
64  English           ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer
SHRI GOVINDA CHANDRA TIRIA Vs SIBAJI CHARAN PANDA & ORS. – [2020] 1 S.C.R. 709
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,K.M. JOSEPH
”. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. [Paras 17-19][719-F-G; 720- A-B] 1.3 It is noted with some regret that the Union of India, having taken a categorical stand before the central administrative tribunal , endeavoured to possibly help respondent No.1 by Supreme Court (the latter part is not an aspect which we are examining). The final seniority list was published on 3.7.2001, maintaining the provisional seniority list and thus respondent No.1 filed an Original Application NO.584/2001 before the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench
Date of decision : 05-02-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3542/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
65D. RAGHU AND OTHERS Vs R. BASAVESWARUDU AND OTHERS ETC. – [2020] 5 S.C.R. 74
Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,K.M. JOSEPH
. In Arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal has drawn support undoubtedly from the A B C D E F G H 83 views expressed by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh, the central administrative tribunal , Madras and the High Court of Bombay. [Paras 88, 89] [158-C-H; 159-A-D] 4.1 C D E F G H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. cases arise out of Original Applications (O.A.s) filed before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad and the Orders of the Tribunal in the cases being questioned in a batch of Writ Petitions. As far as Civil Appeal Nos
Date of decision : 05-02-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1970/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
66DHANSAI SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. – [2020] 1 S.C.R. 120
Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI
Court was pleased to set aside the relief of gratuity given to that person by the central administrative tribunal and the High Court. In other words, the coordinate Bench of this Court opined that a daily-rated Mazdoor who has been regularized but did not have qualifying service in terms of
Date of decision : 21-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/564/2020 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
67SIDDARAJU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. – [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1175
Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN
particular. Since the reference has been disposed of by us today, contempt petitions be listed for hearing. Civil Appeal No. 1567 OF 2017: 12. Application for impleadment in C.A. 1567/2017 is allowed. 13. This matter arises out of the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench
Date of decision : 15-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1567/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
68UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs G RAMESH – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 476
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HRISHIKESH ROY
Application (OA) filed before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad – Representation rejected – On being moved afresh, the Tribunal held that upon the dismissal of the candidate who was selected and appointed, the respondent had right to be appointed as postman– Order affirmed by the High
Date of decision : 09-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/140/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
69NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs HARLEEN KAUR & ORS. – [2019] 18 S.C.R. 896
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HRISHIKESH ROY
benefits shall be with effect from the date of the judgment of the central administrative tribunal i.e. with effect from 1 October 2015. However, we clarify that the respondents would be entitled to notional pay fixation and continuity of service. 8. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal
Date of decision : 22-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8974/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
70  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY & ORS. Vs UDAI BHAN SINGH – [2019] 17 S.C.R. 527
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,AJAY RASTOGI
authority by its order dated 9 March 1992 came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent was proved and that it warranted his dismissal from service. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the respondent instituted proceedings before the central administrative tribunal at proved against the respondent would warrant dismissal from service. An appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority was dismissed by the appellate authority on 28 November 2008. 8. On 18 May 2009, the central administrative tribunal dismissed OA No.151 of 2009 instituted by the
Date of decision : 21-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9303/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
71BAIDYANATH YADAV Vs ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS. – [2019] 15 S.C.R. 427
Judge Name: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,AJAY RASTOGI
No. 1 approached the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellant’s appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the State Screening Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his name
Date of decision : 19-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8847/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
72  English           தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs JAWAHAR SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS – [2019] 14 S.C.R. 628
Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY
of respondent nos.4 & 5 – First respondent’s name could not be included in the Select List of 2004 – Respondent nos.4 & 5 appointed by the Government of India – Challenged by the first respondent before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench – Rejected – Review application included in the Select List have been appointed by the Government of India by Notification dated 29.04.2005. 3. Aggrieved by his non-appointment to the IAS, the first respondent filed OA No.749 of 2006 before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The said application was
Date of decision : 15-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4626/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
73  English           മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer
ROJER MATHEW Vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. – [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,DEEPAK GUPTA,SANJIV KHANNA
resolve. From the compilation of the learned Attorney General, it appears that the central administrative tribunal , the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Armed Forces Tribunal, the National Green Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would require immediate attention. While
Date of decision : 13-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8588/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
74  English           தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs GANDIBA BEHERA – [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1136
Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE
Leave to Appeal. 3. All these appeals have reached this Court from decisions of different Benches of the central administrative tribunal and thereafter judgments of the High Courts on a common question of law. The dispute in these appeals is as to whether services rendered by the employees in designations being the short form of Gramin Dak Sevaks is what they are known as at present. 5. The lead case which has been argued before us arises from an application instituted by one Gandiba Behera registered as O.A. No. 609/2010 before the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench. The said
Date of decision : 08-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8497/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
75UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs LT. COL. OM DUTT SHARMA (RETD.) DEAD THROUGH LRS & ORS. – [2019] 14 S.C.R. 9
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA
. The question was as to whether the appellant therein can invoke jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal or the High Court, it being a case prior to the enactment of Armed Forced Tribunal Act 2007. This Court held as under: – “9. As stated above, although the appellant was selected by writ petition filed by the appellant, whereas the central administrative tribunal erroneously accepted the claim of the appellant that he is an army personnel………… “ 25. Another undisputed fact that the respondents have retired from service corresponding to the age of the retirement of the
Date of decision : 05-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8139/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
76GOVT. OF NCT DELHI & ORS. Vs PRADEEP KUMAR & ORS. – [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1056
Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY
– Original Application against the order rejecting their candidature was allowed by central administrative tribunal directing the authorities to appoint the candidates by considering their merit position in the unreserved category – Tribunal’s order was upheld by High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court Aishwarya Bhati, represents the contesting Respondent Nos. 2-6. The respondents and few others had filed the O.A. No. 1047 of 2014 before the central administrative tribunal (CAT) and the same was allowed on 20.08.2018 (Annexure P/5). The resultant challenge by the appellants was dismissed
Date of decision : 24-10-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8259/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
77PRAHLAD RAUT Vs ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES – [2019] 11 S.C.R. 809
Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,INDIRA BANERJEE
, allowing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5977 of 2016 filed by the respondent, and setting aside the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal at New Delhi, whereby the learned Tribunal had allowed Original Application (O.A.) No.3381 of 2013 filed by the
Date of decision : 27-08-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6640/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
78UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs S. MAADASAMY AND ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2019] 8 S.C.R. 234
Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,M.R. SHAH
has dismissed the said writ petitions preferred by the appellants-Union of India and others and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal dated 04.07.2006 in O.A. No. 218 of 2005 and O.A. No. 814 of 2005, the Union of India and others- original writ Sri P.S. Krishnamurthy by way of O.A. No. 795 of 2001, but the same was dismissed by the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) on 29.07.2001. According to the appellants, the Government of Puducherry also sent a proposal to UPSC for amendment of the recruitment rules equating
Date of decision : 01-05-2019 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CRIMINAL)…/5969/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
79VINOD VERMA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 6 S.C.R. 1014
Judge Name: ASHOK BHUSHAN,K.M. JOSEPH
candidates – Promotions also made against the 75% category for the subsequent years – Seniority list of Sub-Divisional Engineers issued – Challenged in various Benches of central administrative tribunal – In CAT, Chandigarh Bench, case titled Dewan Chand & Ors. vs. Union of India was filed wherein. 12.08.2014 in Rajesh Banta & Ors. vs. Dewan Chand & Ors. and BSNL vs. S.K. Dubey – Against the judgment of Tribunal dated 25.08.2009 in Dewan Chand vs. Union of India, a writ petition was filed in Punjab and Haryana High Court titled Rajesh Banta and others vs. central administrative tribunal and
Date of decision : 02-04-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14967/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
80SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS Vs ORDINANCE FACTORY BOARD & ORS. – [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1046
Judge Name: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,DINESH MAHESHWARI
respondent Nos.4-6 herein. 3. A few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of the appeal, which involved a short point. 4. The appellant and respondent Nos.4-6 herein approached the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Calcutta against respondent Nos.1-3 (Ordinance Factory Board & Ors
Date of decision : 29-03-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3290/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
81S. SREESANTH Vs THE BOARD OF CONTROL FOR CRICKET IN INDIA & ORS. – [2019] 4 S.C.R. 765
Judge Name: ASHOK BHUSHAN,K.M. JOSEPH
was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the central administrative tribunal . In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of
Date of decision : 15-03-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2424/2019 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
82  English           ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SHANKAR PRASAD DEEP ETC.ETC. – [2019] 5 S.C.R. 471
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench by displaced persons – Tribunal found fault with the Railway for initiating selection process for filling up 511 vacancies in Group ‘D’ posts, holding that recourse to direct recruitment was not justified without accommodating all the land oustees and entertained. All the applications received should be properly registered in a register and the final disposal also indicated to keep a proper check.” 8. The present dispute originates in a batch of Original Applications which were filed before the central administrative tribunal at its Cuttack Bench by
Date of decision : 14-03-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3030/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
83MISHRA AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.] Vs RAJ KUMAR ANAND – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 1076
Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,NAVIN SINHA
terms of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008. 5. As pay was not correctly fixed, the respondent filed an original application before central administrative tribunal for correct fixation of the pay under Rule 11 of the Rules, 2008. The Tribunal vide order dated 17.05.2012 in O.A. No.2475/2011 rejected on 24.7.2012. The Assistant Director also passed an order dated 7.8.2012 declining the prayer made by the respondent. Again, the respondent filed the original application before the central administrative tribunal . The original application and review both were dismissed. 6. Aggrieved
Date of decision : 14-03-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3052/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
84CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER GUJARAT TELECOM CIRCLE, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ORS. Vs MANILAL AMBALAL PATEL & ANR. – [2019] 4 S.C.R. 1034
Judge Name: ASHOK BHUSHAN,K.M. JOSEPH
Application filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the appellants wherein appellants challenged the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”). The Tribunal by the impugned order quashed order dated
Date of decision : 08-03-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1681/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
85  English           தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer
THE GOVT. OF INDIA & ANR. Vs P. VENKATESH – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 978
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
employee, while in harness. The essence of the claim lies in the immediacy of the need. It is evident that even the first recourse to the central administrative tribunal was in 2007, nearly eleven years after the death of the employee. In the meantime, the first set of representations had been considered similar requests by several other employees. 4. In 2007, the respondent initiated proceedings1 before the Madras Bench of the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal, by its order dated 26 June 2007, directed the appellants to consider the representation of the respondent dated 14
Date of decision : 01-03-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2425/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
86UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs C. GIRIJA & ORS. – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 131
Judge Name: ASHOK BHUSHAN,K.M. JOSEPH
the order of the central administrative tribunal in her favour. 2. Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding these appeals and writ petition are: The Southern Railway, Divisional Office, Personnel Branch issued a notification dated 14.10.1999 for selection of group ‘C’ employee to Group as per the reservation rules prevalent at the relevant time. The appellant aggrieved by the communication dated 27.12.2007 filed O.A. No.466 of 2009 before the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam in which the applicant Smt. Meena Bhaskar,the selected candidate was impleadedas respondent
Date of decision : 13-02-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1577/2019 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued | Direction Issue : Appeals allowed and Writ Petitions disposed of.
87  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SH. NARENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 643
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,S. ABDUL NAZEER
ACP in the pay scale of Rs. 8000/- to 13,500/- which was not being allowed, which led to the filing of an application before central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench (for short ‘the CAT’). This gave rise to O.A. No. 514 of 2002. The said O.A. was allowed by the CAT, by an order dated
Date of decision : 04-02-2019 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/211/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
88ALL INDIA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES Vs SANJIV CHATURVEDI & ORS. – [2019] 1 S.C.R. 862
Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,INDIRA BANERJEE
21.08.2018 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowing the writ petition being WPSB No.359 of 2018 filed by the respondent no.1 and quashing the order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Chairman of the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “CAT two Members, the case or matter may be transferred by the Chairman or, as the case may be, referred to him for transfer to, such Bench as the Chairman may deem fit. (7) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the Benches of the central administrative tribunal shall ordinarily sit at New
Date of decision : 01-02-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1392/2019 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
89HIRANDRA KUMAR Vs HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD & ANR. – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 608
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
limit or the extent of relaxation to be given, cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The only basis on which the respondent moved the central administrative tribunal was the earlier Rules of 1976 under which, though an age limit was prescribed, a limit had not been placed on the extent of scheme. They could have picked up any other date. They could have even picked up the date of the judgment passed by the central administrative tribunal . As rightly contended by Mr Patwalia, by choosing 2-5-1997 as the cut-off date, no illegality was committed. Ex facie, it cannot be said to be
Date of decision : 29-01-2019 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/1343/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
90ANIL KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 521
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
promotion to the higher post. central administrative tribunal did not find any substance in the appellant’s grievance. Writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was also rejected. Hence, the present Appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In Dev Dutt vs. Union of India & Promotion Rules for Administrative Staff, 1982. 3. He moved the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. The Tribunal did not find any substance in his grievance for the reason that he did not fulfil the benchmark of “Very Good” for financial upgradation. The Tribunal was of the view that CSIR is
Date of decision : 21-01-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/888/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
91UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL & ORS. ETC.ETC. – [2019] 2 S.C.R. 317
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HEMANT GUPTA
A B C D E F G H 317 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. central administrative tribunal & ORS. ETC.ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos.175-176 of 2019) JANUARY 08, 2019 [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.] Service Law – Regularization – Group ‘D’ workers engaged on casual basis at the Institute in question (under the administrative control of Comptroller and Auditor General of India) not regularized despite long years of service – central administrative tribunal mandated preparation of seniority list and for working out the possibility of regularizing services of the
Date of decision : 08-01-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/175/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
92  English           हिन्दी – Hindi          ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DR. O. P. NIJHAWAN & ORS. – [2019] 1 S.C.R. 281
Judge Name: ASHOK BHUSHAN,L. NAGESWARA RAO
dated 13.05.2009, where the Government decided to count the said special pay for pension and pensionary benefits. [Paras 19, 20][293-C-D; 294-C-D] 1.2 The original applications filed by Scientists similarly situated was allowed by central administrative tribunal against which few of the writ appeals raising common questions of law and facts have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. All the appeals have been filed by the Union of India through Ministry of Defence and others questioning the judgment of High Court and judgments of central administrative tribunal , Principal
Date of decision : 03-01-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12040/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
93  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs V. R. TRIPATHI – [2018] 13 S.C.R. 281
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
. Aggrieved by the denial of compassionate appointment, the respondent moved an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal having held in favour of the respondent and upon the dismissal of a petition seeking review, the Union of India and the Railway Authorities deceased had, during his lifetime, contracted a second marriage. 6. Principally on the above foundation, the High Court found no reason to differ with the view of the central administrative tribunal and observed that the direction to the railway authorities was only to consider the case of the
Date of decision : 11-12-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12015/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
94UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs DYALU RAM – [2018] 14 S.C.R. 941
Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH
, affirming the decision of the central administrative tribunal . 2. The Respondents were engaged in 1993 and 1994 respectively on casual basis by the Headquarters, Army Training Command (ARTRAC), Shimla. The wages payable to them were disbursed out of Regimental Funds. They were terminated from service with effect from 1 September 2003. The respondents moved the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh for challenging the order of termination. By its judgment dated 8 November 2005, the Tribunal held that the respondents were working as ‘civil cooks’ continuously since the date of
Date of decision : 11-12-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12004/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave granted | Direction Issue : APPEALS ALLOWED
95DINESH KUMAR KASHYAP & ORS. ETC. Vs SOUTH EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY & ORS. ETC. – [2018] 14 S.C.R. 947
Judge Name: KURIAN JOSEPH,DEEPAK GUPTA,HEMANT GUPTA
workshops. The claim of the original writ petitioners who filed applications before the central administrative tribunal (for short CAT) was that as per the existing instructions the select list was prepared with 20% extra candidates. Therefore, the result of 6995 candidates was declared who were
Date of decision : 27-11-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11360/2018 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Disposed off
96PRABHAT RANJAN SINGH & ANR. Vs R.K. KUSHWAHA & ORS. – [2018] 13 S.C.R. 313
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,S. ABDUL NAZEER,DEEPAK GUPTA
batch (earliest joining 14.12.2009), whose inter-se seniority has already been circulated.” Resultantly the promotee officers were placed en bloc senior to all the direct recruits. 6. Shri R.K. Kushwaha, a direct recruit, filed O.A. No. 050/00260/ 2015 before the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’) challenging the seniority given to the promotee officers vide order dated 12.12.2014. The petition was disposed of vide order dated 01.04.2015 directing the Chairman of the Railway Board to consider the representation of Shri R.K. Kushwaha dated
Date of decision : 07-09-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9176/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
97  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GOTTUMUKKALA VENKATA KRISHAMRAJU Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 11 S.C.R. 39
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
interim order, the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, stays the release of Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati (V.K. Garg), having regard to the enhanced age of retirement, in the O.A. filed by him. 07.12.2016 By way of an interim order, the Allahabad High Court petitioners in support of their aforesaid plea are the following: 04.10.2017 The Union of India filed five transfer petitions qua the aforementioned petitions pending before the central administrative tribunal , Delhi and High Courts of Allahabad, Madras, Jharkhand. A sixth transfer petition
Date of decision : 07-09-2018 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/732/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
98BIR SINGH Vs DELHI JAL BOARD & ORS. – [2018] 10 S.C.R. 513
Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA,R. BANUMATHI,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,S. ABDUL NAZEER
Presidential Orders framed/issued under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution of India had arisen in the bunch of writ petitions filed before the High Court of Delhi against the order/orders of the central administrative tribunal . The learned Tribunal following Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao reservation to scheduled castes candidates of other States and Union Territories. The Chennai Bench of central administrative tribunal (“CAT” for short) quashed the selection process holding that migrant Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates could not be considered for appointment for
Date of decision : 30-08-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1085/2013 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
99KUDRAT SANDHU Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2018] 10 S.C.R. 956
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
age of 65 years – Chairpersons who have been former Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 70 years. CAT: In the case of the central administrative tribunal , the old rules/provisions shall continue to apply. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition Forces Tribunal shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 65 years. Chairpersons who have been former Judges of the Supreme Court shall hold office until the attainment of the age of 70 years. CAT: 4. In the case of the central administrative tribunal , we clarify that the old rules
Date of decision : 21-08-2018 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
100  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DIRECTOR GENERAL, CRPF & ORS. Vs JANARDAN SINGH & ORS. – [2018] 5 S.C.R. 81
Judge Name: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,ASHOK BHUSHAN
LAKSHADWEEP.” 3. The Order clarified that allowance to be admissible to the personnel who were actually working in the North East Region. The respondents filed Original Application No.778 of 2006 before central administrative tribunal claiming grant of Special (Duty) Allowance as per the Order dated 14.12.1983. The central administrative tribunal by its judgment and Order dated 05.11.2007 directed for sanction of Special (Duty) Allowance to the applicants for the period they have actually worked in the North Eastern Region. Against the Order of Tribunal, appellant filed a Writ Petition in
Date of decision : 02-07-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5850/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
101LT. COL. VIJAYNATH JHA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 4 S.C.R. 560
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
made representation to the concerned authorities, which was turned down. Thereafter, he filed Original Application No. 102 of 2012 before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the appellant, which was opposed. The Tribunal held that it Forces. The High Court after referring to Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 and Central Civil Services (Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 held that the central administrative tribunal had no jurisdiction and only remedy was to file an application under Article 226. The appellant
Date of decision : 18-05-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2020/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
102LT. CDR. M. RAMESH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 763
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH,DEEPAK GUPTA
were adversely affected by the amendment to the rules. 7. Some police officers of the Assam Police Service filed Original Application being O.A.No.112 of 2012 in the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’), Guwahati Bench challenging the amendment introducing the LCE mainly on the
Date of decision : 17-04-2018 | Case Number : TRANSFERRED CASE (CRIMINAL)/11/2018 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
103UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs M. SATHIYA PRIYA AND OTHERS – [2018] 6 S.C.R. 701
Judge Name: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,NAVIN SINHA
central administrative tribunal , Chennai Bench, Chennai (for short, ‘CAT’), dated 07.04.2010 directing the official respondents to consider the name of the first respondent herein for appointment to the IPS by taking into account the service records for the period from 1.4.2003 to 31.3.2008, and
Date of decision : 13-04-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10854/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
104UNION OF INDIA Vs R. SETHUMADHAVAN & ANR. – [2018] 3 S.C.R. 675
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,DEEPAK GUPTA
B. LOKUR, J.] A B C D E F G H 678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 3 S.C.R. Application before the central administrative tribunal for his rightful pension. The question raised by the respondent as indeed by some others was referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal and the question
Date of decision : 22-03-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3173/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
105UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH – [2018] 4 S.C.R. 1012
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
the offer of appointment letter no.5-17/96- 99/CPS/1308 dated 16/22 November, 1999. (Dr. M. N. Haque) DIRECTOR.” (emphasis supplied) 3. The respondent assailed the said order by filing Original Application No.206 of 2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur, inter alia, on the ground that the appointment was made by the Board of Officers after they had duly considered the matter and who were competent to issue offer of appointment to the respondent. Further, if there was any irregularity in the, Tractor Helper and milker and also on ad hoc basis to the post of LDC and UDC. A B C D E F G H 1019 4. The other two affected candidates had also challenged the termination order passed against them by way of Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur OF INDIA AND ANR. v. RAGHUWAR PAL SINGH [A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] A B C D E F G H 1032 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 4 S.C.R. 28. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment of the central administrative tribunal dated 06.06.2002
Date of decision : 13-03-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1636/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
106KUDRAT SANDHU Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2018] 2 S.C.R. 1005
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
of this W.P. in respect of both Judicial/Administrative members as under : a. Chief Justice of India or his nominee – Chairman b. Chairman of the central administrative tribunal – Member c. Two Secretaries nominated by the Government of India – Members 2. Appointment to the post of Chairman place in the selection process for the central administrative tribunal and it is desirable that appointments be made expeditiously. 7. We will now analyse the position in regard to the selections, tribunal-wise. CESTAT We have been apprised of the fact that in respect of the Central Excise and
Date of decision : 22-02-2018 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/279/2017 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
107TRIPURARI SHARAN AND ANR. Vs RANJIT KUMAR YADAV & ORS. – [2018] 1 S.C.R. 171
Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
conclusions arrived at in the central administrative tribunal order as it failed to take note of the unique characteristics of UPSC examinations.” (Emphasis supplied) Hence it is amply clear that, the Constitution Bench makes a distinction between two types of selections, i.e., selection to
Date of decision : 11-01-2018 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/157/2018 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
108UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs BALBIR SINGH TURN & ANR. – [2017] 12 S.C.R. 421
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,DEEPAK GUPTA
. v. The Principal Accountant General Kerala (Audit) & Ors. [Order dated 08.02.2013 of central administrative tribunal in O.A. No. 541 of 2012] – held inapplicable. D E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Diary F No. 3744 of2016. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.05.2014 and 01.09 .2016, K.K. Anandan & Ors. v. The Principal Accountant General Kerala (Audit) & Ors3 B passed by the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench, Kerala on 08.02.2013. In our view, none of these judgments is applicable because the issue whether the MACP is part of the pay structure or
Date of decision : 08-12-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3744/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
109EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. & ORS. Vs PRATIVA BISWAS & ORS. – [2017] 13 S.C.R. 85
Judge Name: ARUN MISHRA,MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR
rejected the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal and held that such reasoning was not acceptable. The basic pay could not have been reduced by absorption. This Court has observed: “8. We are afraid we cannot subscribe to this reasoning. While upholding the view of central administrative tribunal , Principal
Date of decision : 11-10-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8606/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
110KARAN SINGH Vs DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ANR. – [2017] 8 S.C.R. 675
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
pension was passed. 3. A writ petition was filed by the appellant in the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to make payment of pension. The writ petition was transferred to central administrative tribunal and was allowed by G order dated 09.08.2011 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that
Date of decision : 13-09-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12743/2017 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned | Direction Issue : List this appeal after the decision in reference made in C.A No.7159 of2014
111UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs RAJ KUMAR JHA AND OTHERS – [2017] 8 S.C.R. 664
Judge Name: KURIAN JOSEPH,R. BANUMATHI
approached the High Court challenging the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , G New Delhi (hereinafterreferred to as “the Tribunal”). The matter pertains to the induction of the first respondent and another to Indian Police Service (for short “IPS”), their regularization and submit their unconditional willingness for induction. The respondents approached the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi on the .ground that there were discrepancies in the various Rules governing C promotion to IPS and they prayed for retrospective regularization of
Date of decision : 12-09-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1585/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
112  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ANOTHER Vs . DHARAM PAL – [2017] 14 S.C.R. 569
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.M. KHANWILKAR
regular basis. It was in this situation, he. approached the central administrative tribunal which allowed the claim petition with the direction thatthe respondent shall be paid salary for the post of Junior Engineer I. ‘119.98) s sec x1 H 580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 14 S.C.R. A That
Date of decision : 05-09-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1549/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
113STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. Vs THE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION – [2017] 9 S.C.R. 650
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,R.K. AGRAWAL,PRAFULLA C. PANT
civil consequences should be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter .Since, that was not done, the order (memorandum) dated 2_5. 7 .1991. which was impugned before the Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the central administrative tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of F the appellant. The order of the-Tribunal deserves to be set as_ide. We, accor.dingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the , — central administrative tribunal d~ted 17.9,1993 as well as the order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal
Date of decision : 18-08-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/632/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
114MRlGANK JOHRl & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2017] 7 S.C.R. 349
Judge Name: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE,SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
for employment through the mode of deputation for officials holding an analogous post on regular basis. H 360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 7 S.C.R. A 15. The third limb of his submission was that the Emakulum Bench of central administrative tribunal in T. Jlijaykumar & Anr. Vs. Union of
Date of decision : 10-07-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9316/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
115CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR FCI AND ORS. Vs JAGDISH BALARAM BAHIRA AND ORS. – [2017] 11 S.C.R. 271
Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,N.V. RAMANA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD
. However, it was found upon a complaint that the appellant did not belong to a Scheduled Caste and the Scrutiny Committee rejected his claim. The order of the Scrutiny Committee was upheld by the High Court and by this Court. Subsequently at the behest of the appellant the central administrative tribunal directed
Date of decision : 06-07-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8928/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
116GOHIL VISHVARAJ HANUBHAI & OTHERS Vs STATE OF GUJARAT & OTHERS – [2017] 3 S.C.R. 401
Judge Name: JASTI CHELAMESWAR,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
, specifically in two rooms of a center. The Board took a decision to subject the successful candidates from that center to a re-examination. This was set aside by the central administrative tribunal on the ground that such a decision was taken in violation of the principles of natural justice. It & Others, 2010 6 SCC 6 I 4, largMcale malpractices surfaced in the G written test. The recruitment board ordered a retest, which was challenged in the central administrative tribunal . The tribunal held that a retest was valid. High Court reversed invoking the wednesbmy’s principles ofreasonableness
Date of decision : 28-04-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5680/2017 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
117DR. T. P. SENKUMAR IPS Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2017] 6 S.C.R. 881
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,DEEPAK GUPTA
cut short and he was transferred out as Chairman and Managing Director of the Kerala Police Housing and Construction Corporation Ltd. on State deputation basis by an order dated I” June, 2016. 4. The appellant challenged his displacement by fit ing a petition in the central administrative tribunal , which was dismissed. He then preferred a writ petition in the Kerala High Court challenging the order of the central administrative tribunal . The Division Bench hearing the writ petition dismissed it by the impugned judgment and order dated 25′” January, 2017. It is under these
Date of decision : 24-04-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5227/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
118M. M. THOMAS & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2017] 3 S.C.R. 886
Judge Name: S.A. BOBDE,L. NAGESWARA RAO
these appeals against the impugned common judgment and order dated 10.8.2011 passed by the High Court ofKerala in O.P.(CAT) Nos.2518 and 2525of2011, whereby · the High Court affirmed the order dated 19. 7.201 I passed ey the central administrative tribunal Ernakulam (for short, the ‘Tribunal
Date of decision : 17-04-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5300/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
119UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs RAKESH KUMAR & ORS. – [2017] 3 S.C.R. 783
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
aggrieved by an order of the central administrative tribunal dated 18.07.2014. At the outset, it was pointed out that this Court in W.P.(C)7618/2014 and connected case (Union of India & Ors. vs. Prem Pal Singh), decided on 10.11.2014 had occasion to deal with an B identical matter. The only regularised against permanent posts. They also claimed benefit of 100 per cent service after grant of temporary status for the purpose of pension. They filed O.A.No.3745 of2012, which was allowed by central administrative tribunal by its judgment dated H 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017] 3
Date of decision : 24-03-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3938/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
120P. SIVANANDI Vs RAJEEV KUMAR & ORS. – [2017] 2 S.C.R. 896
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Indian Police Service by some aggrieved officers, an original application was filed before the central administrative tribunal (Tribunal), which set aside the selection for 1994-95. The Tribunal then directed a fresh selection process. The opinion expressed by the Tribunal was accepted by this
Date of decision : 02-02-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4822/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
121MOHAMMED ANSARI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2017] 1 S.C.R. 422
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,UDAY UMESH LALIT
(Control, Classification and Appeal) Rules, 1965 – Constitution of India – Art. 226 – Matter pertaining to GREF(General Reserve Engineering Force) personnel – Jurisdiction of Armed Forces Tribunal(AFT)/ central administrative tribunal (CAI)lorigina/ jurisdiction of the High Court u!Art. 226 Original Application No. 102 of 2012 before the central administrative tribunal , Guwahati Bench, Guwahati. 2. The respondent filed a preliminary objection regardingjurisdiction of the tribunal. The tribunal decided the issue in favour of the appellant vi de order dated 18.06.2012. The tribunal
Date of decision : 02-02-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10131/2016 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
122UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. – [2017] 4 S.C.R. 137
Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,ASHOK BHUSHAN
application in response to the Notification dated 29.12.2007, appearing for his 9’h attempt. The candidature was not accepted, as he had already exhausted his 7 attempts at the examination. The Respondent filed an 0. A. No. 905 of 2008 before the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench attempts at the examination, issued a show cause notice and rejected his candidature for the 2012 Examination. The candidate aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature filed an 0. A. No. 930of2013 in the central administrative tribunal Principal Bench, Delhi. 12. The O.A. was contested by the
Date of decision : 24-01-2017 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/858/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
123STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. Vs STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. – [2016] 9 S.C.R. 495
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Punjab is allowed and order of HARSH KUMAR SHARMA, IFS v. STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR. 499 [A. K. SIKRI, J.l the central administrative tribunal (CAT) has been set aside. The A appellant herein had filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the
Date of decision : 14-12-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11231/2016 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
124DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD Vs PRAVEEN KUMAR – [2016] 12 S.C.R. 145
Judge Name: A.K. SIKRI,R. BANUMATHI
eligible’ and the reason for ineligibility was ‘over age’ – Following the D ;udgment of Delhi High Court in Sachin Gupta case, the central administrative tribunal (‘CAT’) as well as High Court directed the Appellant board to give age relaxation to the respondent – On appeal, held: It is the employer’s passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No. 3 I 04 of 2016 whereby the High Court has affirmed the order of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) which directed the Appellant Board to consider the candidature of the respondent for selection and appointment as Teacher (Primary) in MCD
Date of decision : 11-11-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10824/2016 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
125B. H. KHAWAS Vs UNION OF INOIA & OTHERS – [2016] 3 S.C.R. 773
Judge Name: ADARSH KUMAR GOEL,A.M. KHANWILKAR
reversed the decision of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench at Mumbai in OA No. 419 of2004, dated 3rct March, 2005. The Tribunal had allowed the original application filed by the appellant whilst setting aside the termination order dated 81 ” June, 2004 and instead had directed the challenge before the central administrative tribunal by way of Original Application No. 491 of2004. The Tribunal acceded to the contention of the appel !ant that the appointment made prior to the decision in M ii ind ‘s case will have to be protected. The objection of the respondents that the
Date of decision : 12-08-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9182/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
126GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD. Vs ESSAR POWER LIMITED – [2016] 5 S.C.R. 101
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
orders of the central administrative tribunal , this Court observed that the manner in which justice is dispensed with by the Tribunals left much to be desired. The remedy of appeal to this Court from the order of the Tribunals was too costly and inaccessible for it to be real and effective
Date of decision : 09-08-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3455/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal allowed with certain directions
127PEPSU ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATIALA THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & ANR. Vs S. K. SHARMA & ORS. – [2016] 4 S.C.R. 24
Judge Name: SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,R. BANUMATHI
ofTelecommunications, Government.of India and received pension immediately on retirement. For no good reasons his other retiral benefits and claims remained unsettled in spite of several representations. After serving the notice under Section 80 CPC and approximately after three years he moved the Central Administrative Tribunal . While the matter was pending with this Court, upon directions of the Department, the appellant was paid some of the benefits. At the stage of final hearing, this Court considered the circumstances and observed that in the facts of the case the Union of India was not
Date of decision : 08-08-2016 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4703/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
128AVTAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2016] 7 S.C.R. 445
Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,ARUN MISHRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench and proceedings were remanded and after remand, fresh removal orders were passed by the appellant which have been set aside by the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench and which arc the subject-matter of the present proceedings held thus : “3. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi made on 6- 9-1995 in OA No. 1756of1991. The admitted position is that the respondent appeared for recruitment as a Constable in Delhi Police Services in the year 1989-90 with
Date of decision : 21-07-2016 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/20525/2011 | Disposal Nature : Reference answered
129D. SUDHAKAR Vs STATE OF A.P. & ORS. – [2016] 2 S.C.R. 861
Judge Name: MADAN B. LOKUR,S.A. BOBDE
, he approached the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench by filing O.A. No. 1297 of 2010 challenging the selection of 15 candidates by the Selection Committee constituted for this purpose that had recommended the 15 candidates to the Union Public Service Commission for consideration
Date of decision : 28-03-2016 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE TO PETITION (CIVIL)…/19898/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
130SAROJ KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2015] 9 S.C.R. 171
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
directed against judgment and order dated 27.2.2014, passed by the E High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 50733 of 2012 whereby the High Court has allowed the petition and set aside the order dated 16.1.2012 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Berich (for short
Date of decision : 18-08-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6081/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
131THE GUJARAT MARITIME BOARD Vs G.C. PANDYA – [2015] 4 S.C.R. 326
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
relief could not have been sought by the plaintiff before the Gujarat Civil H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 4 S.C.R. A Services Tribunal as the defendant was simply a Board and not covered within jurisdiction of said Tribunal. It was not a matter to be heard by the Central Administrative Tribunal either as the plaintiff was not a Central Government employee. As such, we do not find any error in the B impugned order passed by the High Court. 13. In a case where the written statement is not filed, the civil court has the jurisdiction to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 of
Date of decision : 13-04-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3563/2015 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
132DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [2015] 15 S.C.R. 194
Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,S.A. BOBDE
hereinabove, was raised at E the hands of the erstwhile members of the ministerial cadre, namely, those members of the original ministerial cadre, who had not opted for appointmenUabsorption _into the cadre of Data Entry Operators. In their challenge raised before the central administrative tribunal , Madras
Date of decision : 26-03-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2485/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
133VED MITIER GILL Vs UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS – [2015] 5 S.C.R. 73
Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,S.A. BOBDE
Union Territory of Chandigarh, as well as the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh were assailed G by the appellant, as well as by the petitioners, before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as, the Administrative
Date of decision : 26-03-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3194/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
134GRAH RAKSHAK, HOME GUARDS WEL. ASSO Vs STATE OF H.P. & ORS. – [2015] 2 S.C.R. 800
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,N.V. RAMANA
contin.uously performing the duties of a regular nature. They moved before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair seeking equal pay E for equal work with regular Home Guards or for regularization of their service. The said original application was disposed of by all be absorbed in the regular administration which would disentitle them to the benefits of the directions given by the central administrative tribunal and the High Court. 45. On the question of creation of supernumerary posts, It may be indicated that while it is no doubt true that creation
Date of decision : 11-03-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2759/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
135UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs MAJOR GENERAL SHRI KANT SHARMA & ANR. – [2015] 4 S.C.R. 676
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,N.V. RAMANA
Tribunal 8 may also exercise any of the powers conferred under clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be. 85. The Committee enquired about the nature of the proposed Tribunal, whether it would be a judicial, quasi c judicial body in the line of central administrative tribunal , the Ministry. Chandrakumar’s case, which was relating to the central administrative tribunal , which was H established by an Act of Parliament, similar provisions UNION OF INDIA v. MAJOR GENERAL SHRI KANT 695 SHARMA [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.] were there where an appeal against the orders of the A
Date of decision : 11-03-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7400/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
136H. L. GULATI Vs UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS – [2015] 5 S.C.R. 722
Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
. Aggrieved by the punishment order dated 30.11.2005, and the rejection of the review petition vide order dated 1.8.2007, the appellant approached the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Administrative Tribunal’) by filing Original Application
Date of decision : 26-02-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8224/2011 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
137UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs V.K. KRISHNAN & ORS – [2015] 3 S.C.R. 183
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
– up. Out of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, respondent nos.2 and G 3 were promoted to a higher post of Pointsman ‘B’ in group C, whereas respondent no.1, who was having the longest service in group D, had not been promoted and therefore, he had approached central administrative tribunal with a
Date of decision : 17-02-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2532/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
138AJAY KUMAR CHOUDHARY Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY & ANR. – [2015] 2 S.C.R. 415
Judge Name: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,C. NAGAPPAN
revision and re-trial; that the burden lies on the prosecution to justify and explain the delay; that the Court must engage in a balancing test to determine whether this right had been denied in the particular case before it. Keeping these factors D in mind the central administrative tribunal had the subordinate staff of SDOs/ Technical Officer. It was in this background that he D received the Suspension Order dated 30.9.2011. Various litigation was fruitlessly initiated by the Appellant in the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, as well as in the Punjab & Haryana High
Date of decision : 16-02-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1912/2015 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
139UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SCHAN LAL SAYAL & ORS. – [2015] 1 S.C.R. 948
Judge Name: F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
employees are involved and in order to balance the rights of both the groups, an independent Expert Committee is 8 constituted which would be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court, with the assistance of a retired Member of the central administrative tribunal based on the principles laid down in is the order of the Tribunal dated 28th February, 1992 of the Punjab Bench of the central administrative tribunal . Subsequent to the confirmation of the judgment of the Allahabad High Court by the order of the Supreme Court dated 8th April, 1986, the private respondents herein namely, E
Date of decision : 21-01-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4389/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
140T.M. SAMPATH & ORS. Vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES & ORS. – [2015] 1 S.C.R. 748
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,VIKRAMAJIT SEN,PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE
dated 18.03.2011 in Review Petition No.90/2011, by which the High Court set aside the Order dated 08.02.2010 passed by central administrative tribunal in Original Application No.2037 of 2008 filed by the appellants herein. F 3. The facts of these appeals are briefly stated hereinafter. Appellants appellants filed O.A. No.2037 of 2008 before the central administrative tribunal assailing the decision of the Governing Body dated 30.03.2000 rejecting their request to switch-over to the Pension Scheme and letter dated 16.3.2000 issued by the Finance Ministry whereby the request of the H 760
Date of decision : 20-01-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/712/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
141CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECrGR CENTRAL BANK A OF INDIA & ORS. Vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA SC/ST EMPLOYEES WELFARE “ASSOCIATION & ORS. – [2015] 1 S.C.R. 55
Judge Name: JASTI CHELAMESWAR,A.K. SIKRI
sent the matter to the regular Bench for disposal of the matters but having regard to the nature of controversy and the fact that the central administrative tribunal , Delhi (for short “the Tribunal”) has followed S. Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, (1996) 6 sec 580 which is not good law and
Date of decision : 09-01-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/209/2015 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
142UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs S.N. MAITY & ANR. – [2015] 1 S.C.R. 580
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
Bench of the High Court has overturned the order passed by the central administrative tribunal (‘tribunal’ for short), Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. NO. 215 of 2005, is called in question. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts which are requisite to be stated are that the 1st respondent was
Date of decision : 06-01-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5983/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
143UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ORS, Vs ANJU JAIN & ANR. – [2015] 1 S.C.R. 599
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY v. ANJU 601 JAIN [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.] (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the CAT’) and dismissed the writ A petition preferred by the appellants herein. 3. The factual matrix of the case is as under
Date of decision : 06-01-2015 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/50/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
144SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION &ANR. Vs T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 149
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
promotion to the higher post, his turn of promotion comes when a vacancy arises or in case there is a cause of action. 10. Cases before central administrative tribunal F After rationalisation of pay scales of Electronic Data Processing posts as Data Entry Operator, number of persons, who were working against lower posts of Key~Punch Operator in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 and redesignated as Data Entry Operator Grade’/\, claimed that they are entitled for the G scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200. central administrative tribunal Benches situated in different States, passed contradictory
Date of decision : 09-12-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10862/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
145MINERAL EXPLORATION CORPORATION. LTD. Vs ARVIND KUMAR DIXIT AND ANOTHER – [2014] 11 S.C.R. 255
Judge Name: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,PRAFULLA C. PANT
arbitrary nor violati•·e of Art. 14 of the Constitution – Order of the High Court and the E tribunal set aside. Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: The central administrative tribunal and the High Court erred in law in allowing the wage revision F benefits to the employees, who were not covered Administrative Tribunal , and the High Court. Therefore, the judgment of the High Court and that of the central administrative tribunal are set aside. [Paras 15, 18, 19] [266-8-C; 267-E- B G] A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India and others 2003 (3) SCR 928:(2003) 5 SCC 163; Officers
Date of decision : 03-12-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10697/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
146UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs P. GUNASEKARAN – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1312
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,KURIAN JOSEPH
charges were proved D and, on due procedure, the respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 10.06.1997. The said order of disrl)issal dated 10.06.1997 was challenged before the central administrative tribunal , Chennai Bench in O.A. No. 805 of 1997. During the pendency of the original application.before E the central administrative tribunal , in criminal appeal, the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore acquitted the respondent. 5. The central administrative tribunal , vide order dated 27.10.1999, took the view that the respondent having been F acquitted
Date of decision : 19-11-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10386/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
147JOGINDER SINGH Vs UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH & ORS. – [2014] 11 S.C.R. 155
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
of 2003 and Civil Writ Petition No. 7754 CAT of 2004, by the High Court of Punjab anct Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the High Court set aside the G common order dated 12.3.2003 passed by the central administrative tribunal (in short “CAT”), Chandigarh, urging various grounds in support of the charges levelled against him on 04.10.1999. The appellant filed Original Application F before the CAT, Chandigarh, for issuing a direction to the respondent for issuance of an appointment order in view of his selection to the post in the selection process. 4. The central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh
Date of decision : 11-11-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2325/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
148CENSUS COMMISSIONER & OTHERS Vs R. KRISHNAMURTHY – [2014] 11 S.C.R. 463
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,R.F. NARIMAN,UDAY UMESH LALIT
relevance in the instant C case. One Dr. E. Sayedah preferred W.P No. 25785 of 2005 in the High Court of Madras for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order passed by the central administrative tribunal in 0.A. No.3/2002 on the foundation that when there is no Scheduled Tribe
Date of decision : 07-11-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9996/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
149VIRENDRA KRISHNA MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIAAND OTHERS – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 17
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,KURIAN JOSEPH,R.K. AGRAWAL
Government of India before the High Court F and this Court and the direction issued by this Court vide Order dated 11.09.2013. 10. The undisputed factual and legal position is as follows: a. The finding by the central administrative tribunal that G · “The decision of respondents not to
Date of decision : 31-10-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9979/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
150STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. Vs ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA & ORS. – [2014] 12 S.C.R. 193
Judge Name: JASTI CHELAMESWAR,A.K. SIKRI
. However, in some other case filed by similarly situated persons, a Full Bench of the central administrative tribunal declared the Notification invalid vide its judgment dated December 16, 1993. G After this Notification was declared invalid, the appellants also claimed the benefit of that judgment from the Railways. On Railways refusal to extend the benefit, they filed Application in 2. (1997) s sec 121. H 204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 12 S.C.R. A the central administrative tribunal in April 1994. This Application was dismissed by the Tribunal as time barred and against the
Date of decision : 17-10-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9849/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
151VIJAY SHANKAR PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2014] 13 S.C.R. 1238
Judge Name: JASTI CHELAMESWAR,A.K. SIKRI
Ruleih.Atter certain correspondence; (the . details of which are not,necessaryforthe present purpose), CD· the disi:iplinary authority appointed an .Enquiry Officer on 27.2.2012: The appellant” submitted his reply on 5.3.2012 . .. , The appellant challenged the chargesheet before the Central · Administrative Tribunal in O.ANo.623 of 2012 which was eventually’dismissed on 29.8.2012. Aggrieved by the same, . ::, E the appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court \ but withdrew the same.subsequently. The order of the Central · ··, ‘·…….._ Administrative Tribunal became, Infrastructure and Industrial Commissioner, Govt. of U.P. in order to enquire into the charsges imposed against him.” 6. Challenging the order dated 26.9.2012, the appellant again approached the central administrative tribunal by filing an O.A.No.395/2012. The earlier O.A.No.381/2012 was dismissed by the central administrative tribunal on 16.4.2013 on the ground that it had become infructuous. O.A.No.395/ D 2012 was also dismissed on 20.12.2013 with certain directions. The later decision was challenged by the appellant herein in Writ Petition No.87(S/B) of 2014, in which the order under
Date of decision : 22-09-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9043/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
152SHRI KRISHAN AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2014] 10 S.C.R. 447
Judge Name: H.L. DATTU,ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE
Petition (Civil) No.3774 of 2011, dated 09.05.2014. 2. The matter arose before the High Court of Delhi against B order dated 21.09.2010 passed in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009 and against review order dated 16.11.2010 in R.A. No. 295 of 2010 in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the plea of the petitioners-herein to be regularised C in the services of the respondents-herein. 3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed against the orders of the Tribunal by the petitioners in the High Court of Delhi
Date of decision : 16-09-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/25721/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
153GOVERNMENT OF NCT (DELHI) AND ANOTHER Vs K. SRIVATSAN – [2014] 7 S.C.R. 834
Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,ARUN MISHRA
aforesaid charge sheet, on 7.5.2012. 6. The controversy in the present case hinges on the entitlement of the respondent to gratuity)nlmediately after his superannuation on 30.06.2008. Since gratuity was not paid to H him, he approached the central administrative tribunal , New GOVERNMENT. Of NCT
Date of decision : 16-09-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8854/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
154VIRESHWAR SINGH & ORS. Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI & ORS. – [2014] 10 S.C.R. 372
Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,M.Y. EQBAL
central administrative tribunal and numbered as T.A. No. 398/2009. By order dated 09.12.2010 the learned E Tribunal decided the aforesaid case (T.A. No. 398/2009) alongwith a connected matter holding that the Resolution dated 17.01.2000 with regard to regularization of GDMOs appointed in both
Date of decision : 02-09-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8414/2014
155SECR. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Vs GRADE-I DASS OFFICERS ASSOCIATION & ORS. – [2014] 8 S.C.R. 976
Judge Name: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
Appellants. T.S. Tobia, Kiran Bhardwaj, Avinash Ahlawat, Rani Chhabra for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. The Respondents in these Appeals were applicants before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the to c the Respondent in that case by the central administrative tribunal appeared to be erroneous. In the present case, however, .the benefit claimed by the Respondents wouid not be restricted to them alone, rather, the policy of Government reflected by the ACPS shall suffer a mis-interpretation
Date of decision : 30-07-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5153/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
156G. MOHANASUNDARAM Vs R. NANTHAGOPAL AND ORS. – [2014] 9 S.C.R. 920
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
whereby 1st respondent was promoted and appointed to the E Indian Administrative Service, before the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench by filing OA No.249 of 2012 and the same was allowed by order dated 18th February, 2013. By the impugned judgment the High Court set aside the said to the IAS cadre for the vacancies of 2009 and 2010. 10. The appellant having not selected/promoted filed Original Application No.249 of 2012 before the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench challenging the notification 10th February, 2012 passed by the Government of D India. When
Date of decision : 21-07-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6614/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
157UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs HITENDER KUMAR SONI – [2014] 6 S.C.R. 563
Judge Name: VIKRAMAJIT SEN,SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
O.A. before the central administrative tribunal , which was rejected. However, the High Court allowed his writ petition holding E that the resignation could not have come into effect, as per clause (3) of 0. M. dated 11.2.1988 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public impugned order·of the central administrative tribunal dated 15.5.2000. D The High Court held the Respondent entitled for reinstatement in service to the post of “Investigator”. The Government was directed to decide the admissibility and entitlement of leave, arrears of pay and allowances and other
Date of decision : 21-07-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10645/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
158ROHTAS BHANKHAR & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2014] 8 S.C.R. 871
Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,J.S. KHEHAR,JASTI CHELAMESWAR,A.K. SIKRI,R.F. NARIMAN
effect from 8.9.2000. [Paras 3, 4, 9 and 10] [875-C-D; 879- A D] 2. The central administrative tribunal has followed S. Vinod Kumar’s case which is not a good law and resultantly 1997 O.M. is also illegal. The respondents are directed to modify the results in the Section Officers/ 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JiURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. G 6046-6047 of 2004. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.11.1998 in Original Applications Nos. 499 & 849 of 1998 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench at New Delhi. H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A Dr
Date of decision : 15-07-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6046/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
159H.C. KULWANT SINGH & ORS. Vs H.C. DAYA RAM & ORS. – [2014] 11 S.C.R. 1053
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA
of 1998 whereby the orders passed by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short “the tribunal”) dated 8.1.1990 and B 23.9.1998 were assailed has redeemed the cause of justice within the requisite parameters of law by lancinating both the ·orders of the
Date of decision : 30-06-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5859/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
160UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs R.P. SINGH – [2014] 6 S.C.R. 351
Judge Name: DIPAK MISRA,N.V. RAMANA
Court of Delhi in W.P.(C)No.16104 of 2004 whereby it has annulled the judgment and order dated 28.06.2004 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New pelhi (for short “the tribunal”) in O.A.No.1977 of 2003 and the order dated 19.08.2004 declining B . to entertain the
Date of decision : 22-05-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6717/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
161KAKALI GHOSH Vs CHIEF SECRETARY, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. – [2014] 14 S.C.R. 334
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,V. GOPALA GOWDA
730 days of child care leave in continuity – Held: In the instant case, respondents have not shown any reason to refuse 0 . 730 days continuous leave – Order of central administrative tribunal to act strictly in accordance with OOPT O.M. dated · 11.9.2008 as amended/clarified on 29.9.2008 allowed the writ petition and set aside the judgment and order dated 30th April, B 2012 passed by the central administrative tribunal Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the Tribunal’). · . 3. The only question which requires to be determined in this appeal is
Date of decision : 15-04-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4506/2014 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
162MAHINDER DUTT SHARMA Vs U.0.1. & ORS. – [2014] 5 S.C.R. 95
Judge Name: J.S. KHEHAR,M.Y. EQBAL
central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, the Tribunal), by filing Original Application no. 3132 of 2002. In the Original Application preferred by him, the appellant narrated F various reasons on account of which delay in filing the appeal had occurred
Date of decision : 11-04-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2111/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
163BISHNU BISWAS & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2014] 4 S.C.R. 625
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
to 8 group ‘D’ posts was E challenged on the ground that though interview was not part of the recruitment process, equal marks were earmarked for written test and interview. The central administrative tribunal quashed the appointments. The appellants filed writ petitions before the High Court, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in W.P.C.T. c Nc~.607-610 of 2012 partly allowing the appeals against the judgment and order dated 24.8.2012, passed by the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta (Circuit Bench, Port Blair) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) allowing the O.A. No.124/AN
Date of decision : 02-04-2014 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4255/2014 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
164SAMTA AANDOLAN SAMITI & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2013] 11 S.C.R. 1124
Judge Name: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
considered as reserved category candidates at the time of “service allocation”? II.Whether Rules 16(2),(3),(4) and (5) of the CSE Rules are inconsistent with Rule 16(1) and violative of Articles 14, 16(4) and 335 of the Constitution of India? Ill.Whether the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was valid to the extent that it relied on Anurag Patel vs. U.P.Public Service Commission (which in turn had referred to the judgment in Ritesh R.Sah v. Dr.Y.L.Yamul, which dealt with reservations for the purpose of admission to postgraduate medical course); and whether .the
Date of decision : 11-12-2013 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/677/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
165ABHAY SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS – [2013] 17 S.C.R. 80
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,C. NAGAPPAN
holding the rank of Lt. General or equivalent rank (12) Chairman, central administrative tribunal (13) Chairman, Minorities Commission (14) Chairman, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Commission (15) Chairman, Union Public Service Commission (c) Any vehicle carrying the dignitary
Date of decision : 10-12-2013 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/25237/2010 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
166S.K. RATTAN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 743
Judge Name: H.L. GOKHALE,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
batchmate who remained at CBI. Representation made by appellant in this regard before the NCRB was rejected. The appellant eventually retired from service whereafter he preferred an application before the central administrative tribunal which was also 8 rejected. The order was upheld by the High Court that stage that he made a representation and the representation having been rejected, he had no option E but to approach the central administrative tribunal . The central administrative tribunal ignored the basic principles that where an employee is transferred to another organization, although
Date of decision : 28-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1921/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
167K.C. BAJAJ AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2013] 14 S.C.R. 1100
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,KURIAN JOSEPH
revised scale of pay. D The employees who retired from Railways prior to 1.1.1996 challenged the O.M. dated 29.10.1999 before central administrative tribunal seeking direction to include the element of NPA for the purpose of computing t.heir pension and quash the O.M. dated 29.101999. The E correctness of order dated September 12, 2008 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) were dismissed. The other question which H calls for determination is whether Non Practising Allowance K.C. BAJAJ v. UNION OF INDIA 1105 [G.S. SINGHVI, J
Date of decision : 27-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10640/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
168B. THIRUMAL Vs ANANDA SIVAKUMAR AND ORS. – [2013] 14 S.C.R. 1076
Judge Name: T.S. THAKUR,VIKRAMAJIT SEN
to promotions to Grade IV was assailed by the All India Non Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe Telecom Employees Association on the ground B that principles of reservation had no application for upgradation on existing posts which did not carry any change in duties and responsibilities. The Central Administrative Tribunal , Ahmedabad upheld that contention and directed that reservation will have no application while upgrading posts under c the BCR Scheme and directed that the department shall take appropriate action for effecting promotions to the upgraded posts without applying the
Date of decision : 27-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10660/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
169ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs NEERAJ KUMAR & ANR. – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 457
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,S.A. BOBDE
earlier 0 was not factually correct. After taking into consideration the above fact, the appellant was granted bail wherein all the aforesaid facts had been incorpo.rated in the bail order dated 29.1.2000. F. As per the appellant, on 26.7.2000, in another case E before the Central Administrative Tribunal , he came to know about the subsequent communication sent by Interpol Singapore in this respect and thus, the appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 600 of 2001 before the High Court of Delhi to take action against the respondents which was F disposed of vide order dated
Date of decision : 22-11-2013 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1839/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
170UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 629
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,S.A. BOBDE
judgment and F order dated 1.6.2012, passed by the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in OA No.495 of 2012 filed by the respondent by which and whereunder the Tribunal has quashed the suspension order passed by the appellimts. G 2. Facts and
Date of decision : 22-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9454/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
171THE CALCUITA PORT TRUST AND OTHERS Vs ANADI KUMAR DAS (CAPT.) AND OTHERS – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 862
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,V. GOPALA GOWDA
, to which reference has been made in Union of India v. M.K. Sarkar (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, a two Judge Bench of this Court considered whether D the central administrative tribunal was right in directing the E Railway Board to allow the respondent to
Date of decision : 13-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7148/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
172KRISHNA KANT TIWARI Vs KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ANR. – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 361
Judge Name: H.L. GOKHALE,KURIAN JOSEPH
his pay protection was declined by the respondents on the ground that he joined 8 the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan on 23.9.1987 and since the cut off date was 1.8.1989, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit. The central administrative tribunal as also the High Court declined to interfere applicable and the appellant had joined the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan before c that date i.e. on 23.9.1987. Therefore, he was not entitled to the benefit as per the said Memorandum/Circular. 5. The appellant moved the central administrative tribunal by filing an O.A. bearing No.341/1999 and
Date of decision : 12-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10239/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
173U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS. Vs GURCHARAN SINGH & ANR. – [2013] 12 S.C.R. 853
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA
rectified. The application challenging the re-fixation of salary was dismissed by central administrative tribunal . Writ petition against the order of Tribunal was allowed. Hence the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. The Tribunal was right in coming to the 853 H representations but as no G change was effected by the appellant-employer in the pay so re-fixed, the respondent had approached the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘ the Tribunal’) by filing Original Application No.975/CH/2000. The said OA had been dismissed by the
Date of decision : 01-11-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9873/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
174BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs S.K. BHATNAGAR & ORS. – [2013] 10 S.C.R. 279
Judge Name: T.S. THAKUR,VIKRAMAJIT SEN
Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.1580 (S/B) of 2010. Regretfully, it is a laconic order in respect of an extremely cryptic decision B c of the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Lucknow Bench, D Luckno’!V rendered on 7.1.2008 in Original Application No.153 of 2007 .. In the impugned
Date of decision : 24-10-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9644/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
175A.K. SINGHANIA Vs GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. – [2013] 9 S.C.R. 1069
Judge Name: C.K. PRASAD,KURIAN JOSEPH
officer(s) – H Damages. B. AM RUTHA LAKSHMI v. STATE OF ANDHRA 1085 PRADESH The appellant in C. A. No. 9193 of 2013, an Assistant A Commissioner of Sales Tax, filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal challenging the action of the State Government in not considering her case for appellant is B entitled to such a positive declaration, which order takes care of the prayer as made in the Original Application. In the circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as of the central administrative tribunal , are set-aside and the relief as prayed in the
Date of decision : 17-10-2013 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1692/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
176DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KVS & ORS. Vs J. HUSSAIN – [2013] 9 S.C.R. 898
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,A.K. SIKRI
approached the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal, however, dismissed his petition. Against the order of the Tribunal, the respondent filed Writ Petition. This time he succeeded in his effort inasmuch as by the impugned judgment, the High Court has found the penalty of removal from service G
Date of decision : 04-10-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8948/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
177UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs B. BANERJEE – [2013] 10 S.C.R. 296
Judge Name: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA,RANJAN GOGOI
central administrative tribunal by its order dated 10.02.2011 answered the question against the respondent which led to a round of litigation before the Calcutta High Court. The High Court held that the respondent was entitled to the allowance in F question. Aggrieved, the Union has filed this
Date of decision : 06-09-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7298/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
178UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs B.V. GOPINATH – [2013] 14 S.C.R. 185
Judge Name: S.S. NIJJAR,M.Y. EQBAL
up to the Finance Minster. So the intention is clearly manifest that all decisions with regard to the approval of charge memo, dropping of the charge memo, B modification/amendment of charges have to be taken by the Finance Minister. The central administrative tribunal as well as the High Court Finani::e Minister. In our opinion, the central administrative tribunal as well as the High Court has correctly interpreted the provisions of the Office Order No. 205 of 2005. Factually also, F a perusal of the record would show that the file was put up to the Finance Minister by the Director
Date of decision : 05-09-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7761/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
179UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI BHANWAR LAL MUNDAN – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 559
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,DIPAK MISRA
Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition E No. 11838 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench has concurred with the view expressed by the central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur Bench at Jodhpur (for short “the tribunal”) in O.A. No. 109 of 2008 wherein the tribunal had quashed the order
Date of decision : 27-08-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7292/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
180UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SHRI G.R.RAMA KRISHNA & ANR. – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 261
Judge Name: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,A.K. SIKRI
respondent filed O.A. before the central administrative tribunal challenging the proposal of the UPSC to fill the post on direct recruitment basis contending that he was eligible to be considered for such a promotion as after UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. GR.RAMA KRISHNA 265 [A.K. SIKRI, J Engineer. The relevant portion of the order of the central administrative tribunal in this behalf reads as under: “The point to be considered here is whether the applicant has any legal right to be considered for the post of Executive Engineer (Mechanical). It is seen he was an C ad-hoc
Date of decision : 23-08-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7032/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
181DEEPALI GUNDU SURWASE Vs KRANTI JUNIOR ADHYAPAK MAHAVIDYALAYA (D.ED.) AND OTHERS – [2013] 9 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,V. GOPALA GOWDA
) Rules, 1965 on the charge that he was absconding from duty. The central administrative tribunal held that no material was available with the disciplinary authority which could justify invoking of Rule 19(ii) and the order of dismissal could not have been passed without holding regular inquiry in
Date of decision : 12-08-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6767/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
182THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY Vs M.K. BAWANE – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 155
Judge Name: ANIL R. DAVE,A.K. SIKRI
by his wife and therefore, as per the policy B of the appellant-organization, he was entitled to one incentive increment for promoting small family norms. The respondent was, however, not given the increment and therefore, he approached the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal his repeated requests he was not given the increment and therefore, he had approached the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad by filing O.A.No.254 of F 2009. The Tribunal rejected his application relying upon the policy of the Government to the effect that a re-employed person, if he
Date of decision : 07-08-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6389/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
183UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs RAJESH KUMAR GOND – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 132
Judge Name: H.L. GOKHALE,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the High Court H 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. · A of Calcutta in Writ Petition No.632 of 2007 which confirmed the judgment dated 9.11.2006 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.939, therefore, that he filed an application in the central administrative tribunal on the basis of ‘equal pay for equal work’. The application filed by the D respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter, wherein amongst other things, in paragraph 9 they stated that the Fifth Central
Date of decision : 25-07-2013 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/17419/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
184JAI BHAGWAN Vs COMMR. OF POLICE & ORS. – [2013] 13 S.C.R. 752
Judge Name: T.S. THAKUR,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
January 2003. The • appellant then approached the central administrative tribunal .. for redress but remained unsuccessful even there. He next approached the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition No.5450 F of 2005 before whom he urged five distinct grounds against the order of dismissal. It was
Date of decision : 05-07-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5162/2013 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
185COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI & ANR. Vs MEHAR SINGH – [2013] 13 S.C.R. 432
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
, candidature of respondent – Mehar Singh was cancelled. 8. On 22/4/2011, respondent – Mehar Singh filed O.A. B No.1819 of 2011 before the central administrative tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), Principal Bench, New Delhi challenging the order of the Screening Committee. The Tribunal by its
Date of decision : 02-07-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4842/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
186ANIL KUMAR MAHAJAN Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 373
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA
before the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, in O.A.No.288/1991 l?eeking a direction to the respondents. to promote him to the selection grade from the date he became entitled with all the o consequential benefits. The appellant contended that he has a clean service record, except for application was accordingly disposed of by the Tribunal. 5. It appears that another application Registration F ·o .A. No.238/1991 was preferred by the appellant before the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, wherein on the G revocation order of suspension he prayed for a direction
Date of decision : 02-07-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4944/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
187G. JAYALAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 868
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,DIPAK MISRA
Court was delivered by DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. In this appeal, the pregnability of the order dated 17.2.2012 pc:assed by the High Court of Delhi in WP. (C) No. 61 of 2012 affirming the order dated 30.11.2011 D passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short
Date of decision : 29-05-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4665/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
188SR. TEWARI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2013] 8 S.C.R. 988
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,DIPAK MISRA
the High Court has allowed the writ petition filed by the Union E of India – respondent no.1 against the order of the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter called the ‘Tribunal’), raising a very large number of grievances. The appellant was running from pillar to post as he had been
Date of decision : 28-05-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4715/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
189SUKHDEV SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2013] 5 S.C.R. 1004
Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,MADAN B. LOKUR,KURIAN JOSEPH
the case of the first respondent and the system that should prevail in the Jal Nigam we do B not find any difficulty in accepting the ultimate result arrived at by the High Court.” Several High Courts as also the central administrative tribunal in their various judgments followed the
Date of decision : 23-04-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5892/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
190UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs ANIL KUMAR SARKAR – [2013] 2 S.C.R. 396
Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,J.S. KHEHAR
& ORS. v. ANIL KUMAR SARKAR 397 was not promoted. He, therefore, filed representations, A which were rejected. He then filed an 0.A. before the central administrative tribunal . It was the case of the department that during the year 1994-95, the respondent committed gross misconduct in the matter passed by the Gauhati High Court at Gauhati in Writ Petition (C) No. 744 of 2010 whereby the Division Bench E of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the F respondent herein and set aside the order dated 21.08.2009 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench
Date of decision : 15-03-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2537/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
191  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PONDICHERRY KHADI AND VILLAGE INDUSTRIES BOARD AND ANR. Vs K. AROQUIA RADJA & ORS. – [2013] 4 S.C.R. 562
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,H.L. GOKHALE,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
they had approached the central administrative tribunal , and their Original Applications were dismissed. Those orders were confirmed by the High Court and by this Court by its order 6.3.2006 in SLP (C) No. 7859-7877 of 2005 in the case of llango & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. It is also
Date of decision : 12-03-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2323/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
192SMT. K. VIJAYA LAKSHMI Vs GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME (COURTS C1) DEPARTMENT AND ANR. – [2013] 4 S.C.R. 364
Judge Name: A.K. PATNAIK,H.L. GOKHALE
in the central administrative tribunal . The selection committee, under the chairmanship of a judge of this Court, had selected him for consideration. When his antecedents were verified by the Intelligence Bureau, a noting was made by the Director (AT), H A B c 380 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Date of decision : 18-02-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1389/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
193STATE OF PUNJAB Vs SAUL SABHLOK AND ORS. – [2013] 5 S.C.R. 18
Judge Name: A.K. PATNAIK,MADAN B. LOKUR
information and materials on whether Shri Dhanda had the experience, ability and character for being appointed as the Chairman of the Public Service F Commission. He submitted that as a matter of fact the State Government was also not even informed of the fact that the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh dated 31.07.2007. The central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, called for the official noting which D led to the passing of the transfer order dated 31.07.2007 and recorded the finding that even though the Government decided not to allow the· use of the Rest House as a permanent
Date of decision : 15-02-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7640/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
194M. MANOHAR REDDY & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2013] 1 S.C.R. 711
Judge Name: AFTAB ALAM,RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI
of India. He has also B functioned as Additional Standing Counsel for Central Government and Standing Counsel for Railways in the central administrative tribunal at Hyderabad. At present he is functioning as Additional Advocate General of Andhra Pradesh. His professional income during the last
Date of decision : 04-02-2013 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/174/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
195KALLAKKURICHI TALUK RETIRED OFFICIAL ASSOCIATION, TAMILNADU, ETC. Vs STATE OF TAMILNADU – [2013] 4 S.C.R. 883
Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,J.S. KHEHAR
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.] up to the increased limit of Rs. 2.5 lakhs. The claim raised by A the employees was rejected in some cases, whereas in some other cases the central administrative tribunal and the High Court took the view, that the benefit of increased quantum of death-cum-retirement
Date of decision : 17-01-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8848/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
196MR. JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH (RETD.) Vs JANEKERE C. KRISHNA & ORS. ETC. – [2013] 3 S.C.R. 987
Judge Name: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,MADAN B. LOKUR
pertaining to appointment of the Judges of the H 1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R. A Supreme Court and High Courts, appointment of the President of State Consumer Forum, central administrative tribunal and so on and the ratio laid down in those judgments is inapplicable while
Date of decision : 11-01-2013 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/197/2013 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
197PRADIP KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1141
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,S.S. NIJJAR,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
of Service) Rules, 1987 was also issued. The respondent challenged the said order in an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal contending that his services were D terminated as a direct consequence of the complaint made by the representatives of the Bar with regard to an incident various legal grounds. By the aforesaid judgment the High G Court has set aside the order passed by the central administrative tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the “CAT’] Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissing QA No.3544 of 2009 on 9th December, 2010 whereby the respondent was discharged from
Date of decision : 14-12-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9082/2012 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
198DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS & ORS. Vs K. CHANDRASHEKAR RAO – [2012] 12 S.C.R. 795
Judge Name: SWATANTER KUMAR,S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA
, F names 48 such appointees were in excess of quota and, as all such candidates were still temporary, a notice under r. 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 was issued terminating their services. The appointees, including the respondent, G approached the Central Administrative Tribunal , which upheld their appointments. The High Court having upheld the order of the Tribunal, the department filed the appeals. Dismissing the appeals, the Court H HELD: 1.1. The Ministry of Personnel, Public DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS & ORS. v. 797 K. CHANDRASHEKAR RAO noticed, the services of the 48 persons, whose names were recommended in excess of the quota, were terminated. These H 804 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 12 S.C.R. A appointees, including the respondent in the present appeal, challenged the said order of termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’). The CAT granted an interim stay during the pendency of the hearing of the application vide its order dated 8th February, 2005. The B present appellants also point out that two other applications, being OA No. 434/2005 and OA No. 761/2005 filed by similarly
Date of decision : 13-12-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9049/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
199THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, LUCKNOW & ORS. Vs PRABHAT SINGH – [2012] 11 S.C.R. 209
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,J.S. KHEHAR
appointment on compassionate ground. It seems, that he could not be appointed as such, because there was no vacancy available to accommodate him. His application therefore remained pending. F 3. Having waited long enough, Pra~hat Singh filed Original Application no. 1459 of 2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the “CAT-Allahabad Bench”). In his Original Application, G Prabhat Singh prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds, since his father Vijay Bahadur Singh had died in harness 5.1.2006. H 212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A 5. Dissatisfied with the order dated 5.1.2006, Prabhat Singh approached the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT- Lucknow Bench”), by filing Original Application no.468 of 2006. The
Date of decision : 30-11-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8635/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
200UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs N.R. PARMAR & ORS. – [2012] 13 S.C.R. 555
Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,J.S. KHEHAR
came to be considered by A the central administrative tribunal , Ahmadabad Bench, Ahmadabad (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT, Ahmadabad”) in R.C. Yadav & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (OA no.92 of 2003). The said Original Application had been filed by direct recruits. Another Original] 13 S.C.R. A raised before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the CAT, Principal Bench”). After a series of legal battles between the rivals, i.e., promotee Income Tax Inspectors and direct recruit Income Tax Inspectors (details whereof
Date of decision : 27-11-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7514/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
201ALOK KUMAR PANDIT Vs STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. – [2012] 11 S.C.R. 87
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
later.” 16. A somewhat similar question came up before the three G Judge Bench in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2009) 6 SCC 619. Some candidates belonging to OBC had filed an application before Madras Bench of the central administrative tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of the Civil Services H
Date of decision : 26-11-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8499/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
202STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. Vs GUJARAT REVENUE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR. – [2012] 10 S.C.R. 816
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,F.M. IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
held that, in the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’), the presence of a judicial member was in fact a requirement of fair procedure B of law, and that the administrative Tribunal must be presided C over in such a manner, so as to inspire confidence in the
Date of decision : 16-10-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7208/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
203HUKUM CHAND GUPTA Vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR & ORS. – [2012] 8 S.C.R. 831
Judge Name: S.S. NIJJAR,H.L. GOKHALE
employer or the Pay Commission – Neither the central administrative tribunal nor a Writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. Service Law – Pay scale – Assured Career Progression C Scheme – Object and features of – Discussed. The promotional post from that of Assistant which carried the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The representation not having been decided, the appellant G filed OA before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal declined to entertain the claim of the appellant. Subsequently, the Screening Committee of
Date of decision : 25-09-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3580/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
204THE SECRETARY, MIN.OF DEFENCE & ORS. Vs PRABHASH CHANDRA MIRDHA – [2012] 6 S.C.R. 182
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,DIPAK MISRA
, Hosur, Bangalore. B. Aggrieved by the said charge memo, respondent preferred O.A. No. 1641 of 1995 before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad (hereinafter called as E ‘Tribunal’) on 23.12.1995 on the ground that the charge memo had been issued to the respondent by the authority not
Date of decision : 29-05-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2333/2007 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
205VIJAY KUMAR KAUL AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [2012] 6 S.C.R. 128
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,DIPAK MISRA
participated in a selection process A conducted by Second Field Ordinance Depot (2FOD) in the year 1984 for the post of Lower Division Clerks. However, due to ban on appointments, they were not issued appointment letters. In December 1993, pursuant to the order of the central administrative tribunal B dated G 24.8.1993 by the Chandigarh Bench of the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), respondent No. 4 was issued an appointment letter. The appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were given appointment in May, 1996 on the basis of the directions issued on 24. 7.1995 by the High Court
Date of decision : 25-05-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4986/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
206UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs SHASHANK GOSWAMI & ANR. – [2012] 6 S.C.R. 98
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,DIPAK MISRA
to get the said family pension at least for seven years · and thereafter, the family pension would be Rs.1,860/- per month plus ?other reliefs admissible on pension 5. Aggrieved, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated E 28.1.2004 rejecting his claim, before central administrative tribunal , Allahabad
Date of decision : 23-05-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6224/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
207R. MOHAJAN & ORS. Vs SHEFALI SENGUPTA & ORS. – [2012] 3 S.C.R. 974
Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,JASTI CHELAMESWAR
decision of the Tribunal punishing for contempt is appealable u/s. 19 of the 1971 Act to the Supreme Court B only- Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – s. 19 – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – 17. Respondents filed an application before the central administrative tribunal challenging their. Para 5, 7 8 2000 (5) Suppl. SCR 610 Referred to. Para 5, 8, 9 B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3297 of 2012. c From the Judgment & Order dated 11.06.2010 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench in CPC No. 113 of 2005 (O.A. No. 203 of 1997). Mohan Jain, ASG
Date of decision : 30-03-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3297/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
208THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.P. Vs S.K. DUBEY & ANR. – [2012] 3 S.C.R. 720
Judge Name: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA,H.L. GOKHALE
case of central administrative tribunal , Rule 8 of the central administrative tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice Chairman and H Members) Rules, 1985. [Paras 16 and 17] [763-C-F] ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, M.P. v. S.K. DUBEY & 729 ANR. 1.6. A clubbing rules are made E and not otherwise. 17. Nothing prevents the State Government from making rules in this behalf specifically for this purpose. A provision for pension has thus been made when the legislature so wanted it, as can be seen in the case of central administrative tribunal . F Thus, Rule
Date of decision : 29-02-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5322/2005 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
209KRUSHNAKANT B. PARMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2012] 3 S.C.R. 484
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA
dismissal passed by disciplinary aut_hority, affirmed by the Appellate Authority; central administrative tribunal and High Court are set H aside. The appellant is reinstated. Taking into KRUSHNAKANT B.PARMAR v. UNION OF INDIA 487 consideration the fact that the Charged Officer has A suffered a reasons of absence for certain period for which he had applied for leave. C 4. During the pendency of the departmental proceedings, the appellant was transferred to another place which he challenged before the central administrative tribunal alleging bias against his superior Officer. The Central
Date of decision : 15-02-2012 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2106/2012 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
210UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ETC. – [2011] 13 S.C.R. 196
Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,A.K. PATNAIK
central administrative tribunal . It directed the Union of India to consider the three wait-listed B · candidates for filling up the advertised vacancies existing in the posts of Judicial Member and Accountant Member in the unreserved category. The Union of India challenged the said order the Delhi High Court A and the common judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, are set aside and the Original Applications filed by the candidates are dismissed. [para 20] [213-G] Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India 1991 (2) B SCR 567 =(1991) 3 SCC 47; Asha Kaul (Mrs
Date of decision : 17-11-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6567/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
211CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, CALCUTTA TELEPHONES DISTRICT, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. Vs SURENDRA NATH PANDEY AND ORS. – [2011] 14 S.C.R. 840
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,S.S. NIJJAR,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
nor did the authorities reply to. their representation. The C respondents filed original application before the central administrative tribunal . By order dated 26th July, 2000, the Tribunal directed the appellants to puhlish the result of the said examination and also to dispose of their not acceded to, nor did the authorities reply to the representation. 7. Thereafter, the respondents filed O.A. No. 629 of 2000 before the central administrative tribunal seeking disclosure 8 of marks and disposal of the representation by the respondents. Vide its order dated 26th July, 2000 the
Date of decision : 03-11-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9058/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
212BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs R. SANTHAKUMARI VELUSAMY & ORS. – [2011] 14 S.C.R. 502
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,MARKANDEY KATJU
Grade IV under BCR was challenged by the All India Non SC/ST Telecom G Employees Association on the ground that principles of reservation would not apply for upgradation of existing posts which did not carry any change in duties and responsibilities. The central administrative tribunal , Ahmadabad
Date of decision : 06-09-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5286/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
213CHANDIGARH ADMININISTRATION THROUGH THE DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (COLLEGES), CHANDIGARH’ Vs CHANDIGARH EDUCATIONAL SERVICE (GROUP GAZETTED) GOVERNMENT ARTS AND SCIENCE – [2011] 12 S.C.R. 398
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,MARKANDEY KATJU
lecturers in the Government Arts and Science Colleges. None of them possessed a Ph.D. degree. They filed OA before the central administrative tribunal challenging the B said Recruitment Rules and the advertisement dated 14.7.2001, as unconstitutional and for a direction that they along with other due to fall vacant on 29.2.1988 on CHANDIGARH ADMN. TH. THE DIR. PUB. INSTN. v. 405 USHA KHETERPAL WAIE [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.] superannuation of a deputationist, two UT cadre lecturers filed A an application before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh, seeking a direction that UT
Date of decision : 02-09-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7570/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
214STATE OF U.P. & ORS Vs LUXMI KANT SHUKLA – [2011] 10 S.C.R. 531
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK
. After the three months period expired on 21.10.1985, the order of removal of the railway servant was passed on 04.11.1985. On these facts the central administrative tribunal , New Mumbai Bench, held that since the period of notice of voluntary retirement had expired on F . 21.10.1985, the order
Date of decision : 19-08-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7105/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
215THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF MADRAS Vs M. MANICKAM AND ORS. – [2011] 10 S.C.R. 324
Judge Name: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE
declining the respondent’s request for correction of the date of birth E made after thirty-five years of his induction into the service and whether the central administrative tribunal was justified in allowing the original application filed by him. While reversing the order of the Tribunal, this
Date of decision : 17-08-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7030/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
216D.P. DAS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2011] 13 S.C.R. 739
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,A.K. GANGULY
said seniority list, he made representations in the year 1992, 1993 and 1995 before the respondent No.1. However, no reply was received by the appellant from the respondent No.1. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred an original B application (O.A.No.457 of 1995) before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur Bench (‘the Tribunal’) and prayed to quash the said seniority list and also for maintenance of discipline wise seniority list initially prepared by the UPSC and for keeping Confidential Reports as criteria for selection C to the next higher grade and also to
Date of decision : 09-08-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7002/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
217SEC., U.P.S.C. AND ANR. Vs S. KRISHNA CHAITANYA – [2011] 9 S.C.R. 842
Judge Name: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE
acknowledgement card E from the appellants. He filed original application (OA) before the central administrative tribunal . By interim order, the Tribunal asked the respondent to submit a copy of his application form to the appellants and also directed the appellants to issue an admission certificate F to action in the matter. 4. As the respondent had not received any acknowledgement card from the appellants, the respondent rushed to the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad, by filing O.A. No.470 of 2010 praying inter alia for an interim relief 8 to the effect that the appellants be
Date of decision : 05-08-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6349/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
218G. SRINIVAS RAO Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 9 S.C.R. 313
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK
133rd rank in the said Examination, was appointed to the IPS and was o allocated to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre on 27.07.1999. The appellant filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal in 2001, contending that instead of respondent no.4 he should have been allocated to the Andhra rank and was appointed to the IPS and was …. ~ allocated to the Andhra Pradesh Cadre on 27.07.1999. The G appellant filed 0.A. No.155 of 2001 before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, contending that instead of respondent no.4 he should have been allocated to the Andhra
Date of decision : 19-07-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1911/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
219JAGDISH PARWANI Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 8 S.C.R. 246
Judge Name: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE
aforesaid communication dated 14.02.1995 communicating the rejection of the representations of the appellant for pay protection, the appellant filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal [Jabalpur D Bench], Jabalpur [for short “Tribunal”] claiming and seeking an order for
Date of decision : 15-07-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5481/2011 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
220UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS. – [2011] 8 S.C.R. 242
Judge Name: MARKANDEY KATJU,C.K. PRASAD
A B c [2011) 8 S.C.R. 242 UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. RAM SINGH THAKUR & ORS. (Civil appeal No. 200 of 2007) JULY 14, 2011 [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] Service Law: Employees of Railway Employees Cosumer Co­ operative Society Ltd. – central administrative tribunal directing Court of Madhya Pradesh. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment B dated 15.09.2003 as well as in the order of the central administrative tribunal dated 30.05.2001 and hence we are not repeating the same here. The respondents were employees of a co-operative society c of
Date of decision : 14-07-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/200/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
221C.M. THRI VIKRAMA VARMA Vs AVINASH MOHANTY AND ORS. – [2011] 8 S.C.R. 212
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK
Mohanty filed O.A. No. 286 of 2006 before the. central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 03.05.2006 contending that the guidelines and norms in the letter dated 31.05.1985 of the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and Training (for E short-Tripura cadre before the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, raising various D contentions and the Tribunal held that the power conferred by Article 16(4) of the Constitution is only for making provision for reservation of appointment or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens
Date of decision : 12-07-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2550/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
222UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs ARULMOZHI -INIARASlJ & ORS. – [2011] 9 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
directed against the judgment and final order dated 5th January, 2010 G delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras, whereby the High Court, in slight modification of the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (for short “the Tribunal”), has directed that the
Date of decision : 06-07-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4990/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
223  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs VIKRAMBHAI MAGANBHAI CHAUDHARI – [2011] 6 S.C.R. 1096
Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,A.K. PATNAIK
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Special Civil Application No. 16575 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the application of the appellants herein upholding the order of the central administrative tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 333 of 2004 wherein the Tribunal by its
Date of decision : 01-07-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2602/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
224COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI & ORS. Vs JAi BHAGWAN – [2011] 7 S.C.R. 558
Judge Name: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE
20.01.2010 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Civil VVrit Petition No. 3591 of 2001, whereby the High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein and set aside D the order dated 15.01.2001 passed by the central administrative tribunal . 3. The facts leading to the filing of the respondent filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal [for short “the Tribunal1 which was registered as OA No. 1755/1997. By order dated 15.01.2001 the Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid original E application as against which the respondent filed a Writ Petition in the
Date of decision : 10-05-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4213/2011
225UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH & TRAINING. Vs SHYAM BABU MAHESHWARI – [2011] 7 S.C.R. 548
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK
for the respondent and we find that in that case the central administrative tribunal , Bombay, by its order dated 11.11.1987 had directed .that RaHway employees who had indicated their option in favour of Pension Scheme either at any time while in service or after their retirement and who then. Subramaniam (supra) the claim of the employee had to be allowed by this Court because in an earlier order, the central administrative tribunal had allowed the claim of the railway employees to switch over to the Pension Scheme B and the order of the central administrative tribunal had become final on
Date of decision : 09-05-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4202/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
226STATE OF J & K & ANR Vs AJAY DOGRA – [2011] 6 S.C.R. 57
Judge Name: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE
petition. In the said case, the issue was as to whether a person not having judicial experience could be appointed as Vice Chairman of the central administrative tribunal . This Court found that the aforesaid issue was not raised in the writ petition and similarly, vires of the section was also not
Date of decision : 07-04-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3066/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
227UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs B. KISHORE – [2011] 5 S.C.R. 719
Judge Name: AFTAB ALAM,RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
considered to be “in indigent circumstances”. 4. The respondent challenged the decision of the Circle Selection Committee before the central administrative tribunal , F Madras Bench in O.A. No.610/1998. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by order dated July 16, 1998. Against the order passed by the
Date of decision : 06-04-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1045/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
228UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs M.M. SHARMA – [2011] 6 S.C.R. 18
Judge Name: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA,ANIL R. DAVE
his dismissal from the service. c 7. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order by filing an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) which was registered as OA No. 176 of 2009. In the said.] Constitution vide order No/2/2008-DO.ll (A) 9Pt.1)-3643 A dated 22.12.2008: AND WHEREAS, Shri M.M. Sharma filed an Original Application No. 176/2009 in the Principal Bench of central administrative tribunal , New Delhi praying for setting aside B and quashing the said order of dismissal; dated
Date of decision : 30-03-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2797/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
229THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, INDIAN COUNCIL FOR AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH & OTHERS Vs D. SUNDARA RAJU – [2011] 4 S.C.R. 95
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA
of 100 marks, the minimum qualifying marks B being 60. The respondent filed an O.A before the central administrative tribunal , which quashed the order of the appellant-authorities and directed them to consider the case of the respondent for promotion. The writ petition filed by the authorities Tribunal clearly held that the ICAR had acted in an arbitrary manner to allocate 50% marks for a personal interview and on this ground alone the non-selection of the applicant ought to be set aside. D 10. The central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench quashed the order of the ICAR and the
Date of decision : 30-03-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2714/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
230POLICE AND ORS Vs SANDEEP KUMAR – [2011] 3 S.C.R. 964
Judge Name: MARKANDEY KATJU,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
. The respondent filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal which was dismissed on 13.02.2004. Against that order the respondent filed a writ petition which has G been allowed by the Delhi High Court and hence this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that
Date of decision : 17-03-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1430/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
231UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Vs S.K. KAPOOR – [2011] 3 S.C.R. 906
Judge Name: MARKANDEY KATJU,GYAN SUDHA MISRA
was passed against him on 01.11.2001. · F The respondent approached the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad Bench, which by its order dated 20th July, 2004 quashed the dismissal order and directed the authorities to proceed from the stage of making available a copy of the G Report of
Date of decision : 16-03-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5341/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
232BHAWANL PRASAD SONKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 4 S.C.R. 630
Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
, the appellant preferred an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow (for short “the Tribunal”). 9. Vide order dated 31st December, 2002, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, observing thus: “I have considered the facts of the case and submissions
Date of decision : 11-03-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5101/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
233BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs GHANSHYAM DASS AND ORS. – [2011] 4 S.C.R. 380
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,P. SATHASIVAM,A.K. PATNAIK
seniority in Grade Ill because of their later promotions and who were not considered for upgradation to Grade IV under the BCR Scheme filed O.A. No.1455 of 1991 before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal vide its order dated 07.07.1992 directed that promotions of 10% posts in the scale which had accrued to others. Since the respondents preferred to sleep over 0 their rights and approached the central administrative tribunal only in 1997, they cannot get the benefit of the order dated 07.07.1992 of the Tribunal in O.A. No.1455 of 1991 and will only be entitled to the benefit
Date of decision : 17-02-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4369/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
234UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. Vs MRS. MANJU MATHUR & ANR. – [2011] 1 S.C.R. 883
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK
.2640 of the corresponding posts of Dietician and E Assistant Dietician respectively under the Government of Punjab. Respondents, however, were informed that they have been allowed revised pay scales as per the conversion technique. \ F Aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal . The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. holding that the claim on the basis of equal pay for equal work is not all pervasive as distinctions have to be made on the basis of number of factors as per the law laid down by this Court and if these factors are taken G into Research and Medical Education, ·-< Government of Punjab. The impugned judgment is G therefore set aside and the order of the central administrative tribunal is sustained. [Para 7, 8) [892-G·H; 893-A·H] State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Ramesh Chandra . H. … 888 SUPREME COURT REPORTS respectively under the Government of Punjab. Respondents, however, were informed that they have been allowed revised pay scales as per the conversion technique. 3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. No. 1017-CH of. F 1993 before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. By order dated
Date of decision : 14-01-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2823/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
235UNNI MENON Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 33
Judge Name: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,S.S. NIJJAR
General, deputed in central administrative tribunal (CAT) – On the basis of his lien and seniority, promoted as Accounts Officer in his parent office i.e. in the office of Accountant General – Thereafter, he was absorbed as Accounts Officer in CAT – Pursuant to recommendations D of IVth Pay wanted promotion – Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s. 13(2) – central administrative tribunal (Accounts Personnel Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1990 – Rule 3 and Schedule 2. 8 While the appellant was working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Acc:ountant General, he went on
Date of decision : 07-01-2011 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7113/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
236SHANKER RAJU Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2011] 2 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: D.K. JAIN,H.L. DATTU
statute is designed to be workable, and the interpretation thereof by Court should E be to secure that object unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end unattainable. The petitioner was appointed as a Judicial Member of the central administrative tribunal on 10.12.2000. After very few and they lie within a narrow compass. Shri Shanker Raju, the petitioner, was appointed as a Judicial Member of the central administrative tribunal (in short, “the Tribunal”) on 10.12.2000. After completion of his five-year term, he was G reappointed for another term of five years and
Date of decision : 04-01-2011 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/311/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
237K. BALARAMAN Vs CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS. – [2010] 14 S.C.R. 1043
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA
came to be issued wherein it was ordered that F additional increment will not be treated as part of basic pay and not to be reckoned for calculating the Dearness Allowance. Against the said communication, the appellant approached the central administrative tribunal by filing an Original Application. The central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench in G O.A.No.776/1996 has mentioned that the additional increment will be forming part of the basic pay of the individual and the appellant would be entitled to the consequential benefits. The respondent-Chairman, Railway Board preferred a
Date of decision : 14-12-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6647/2003 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
238SURAJ BHAN MEENA & ANR. Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. – [2010] 14 S.C.R. 532
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,A.K. PATNAIK
illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional, Virpal Singh Chauhan and others moved the High Court, but the petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal . The . Tribunal, inter alia, held that persons who had been promoted by virtue of the application of roster would be given G
Date of decision : 07-12-2010 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/6385/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
239UNION OF INDIA Vs A. DURAIRAJ (D) BY LRS. – [2010] 14 S.C.R. 981
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,P. SATHASIVAM,A.K. PATNAIK
, he should be given G promotion as ASTE with retrospective effect from 1976 as also all consequential promotions. Since that request was not acceded to, the respondent filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal , which directed the authorities to consider the representations promotions. As that requestwas not acceded, the respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , Chennai (‘Tribunal’ for short) in OA No.1267/1999 praying for F a direction to the appellants to promote him to the post of Deputy Chief, S&T workshop Padanur, by granting him the
Date of decision : 01-12-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1783/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
240R.S. SUJATHA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. – [2010] 14 S.C.R. 227
Judge Name: P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICT!ON : Civil Appeal No. 9579 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 19.12.2002 of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench, Bangalore G in 0.A.No. 715 of 2002. Rajesh Mahale for the Appellant. Sanjay R. Hegde for the Respondents. H R.S. SUJATHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 233 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench (hereinafter called as the ‘Tribunal’) dated 19.12.2002 in Original
Date of decision : 29-11-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9579/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
241UNION OF INDIA Vs SURESH KUMAR NAYAK – [2010] 15 S.C.R. 660
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,H.L. GOKHALE
) still remained part and parcel of the parent Ministry. In the instant case, the entire two units were shifted from the Cabinet Secretariat to the Ministry of Home Affairs and it was, therefore, decided not to give individual option. The central administrative tribunal erroneously held that the
Date of decision : 25-11-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/231/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
242YOGESHWAR PRASAD & ORS. Vs NATIONAL INST. EDU. PLANNING & ADMN. & ORS. – [2010] 14 S.C.R. 22
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA
of pay. H 36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. A 22. The central administrative tribunal on 21.12.1993 directed the Government of India to revise the pay scale of Stenographers and Assistants to the same level as that of the Assistants/Stenographers of the Central
Date of decision : 21-10-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/288/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
243CHALLA JAYA BHASKAR & ORS. Vs THUNGATHURTHI SURENDER & ORS. – [2010] 13 S.C.R. 643
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
computing seniority for elevation to the post of Professor. F 13. Another point which has been taken on behalf of the Appellants is that without going before the central administrative tribunal , the Petitioners in the Writ Petition could not have challenged the Government Order by filing a Writ
Date of decision : 19-10-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5579/2001 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
244K. MANORAMA Vs UNION OF INDIA REP. BY GENL. MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY & ORS. – [2010] 11 S.C.R. 841
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,H.L. GOKHALE
rendered by the Madras High Court allowing Writ Petition No. 1311 of 1999 filed by the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and setting aside the order passed by the central administrative tribunal dated 27 .11.1998 which had allowed the Original Application No. 891 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein no response. She, therefore, filed E the above referred O.A. in the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) at Chennai. The respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed their reply statement before the Tribunal and pointed out that as per the Railway Board’s decision dated
Date of decision : 29-09-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2379/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
245V. RANGANATHAN Vs N. BASKARAN AND ORS. – [2010] 11 S.C.R. 548
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,A.K. PATNAIK
Higher Secondary F School and on the basis of preliminary scrutiny were called for interview alongwith the other candidates. Respondent no.1 was selected for the post. The petitioner filed original application (OA) before the central administrative tribunal seeking direction upon the G U.P.S.C No.1 herein, c Shri N. Baskaran, and the Union Public Service Commission filed two separate w’rit petitions, being W.P. Nos.41237 of 2005 and 10771 of 2006, challenging the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Chennai Bench, on 7th December, 2005 in O.A. No.689 of 2004. The
Date of decision : 16-09-2010 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/18247/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
246CH. NARAYANA RAO Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2010] 11 S.C.R. 205
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA
Appellant’s Writ Petition No. 388 of 2002, wherein and whereunder he had H challenged the order of the central administrative tribunal , CH. NARAYANA RAO v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 207 [DEEPAK VERMA, J.] Principal Bench, Delhi, (hereinafter shall be referred to as A ‘Tribunal’) passed in O.A. No
Date of decision : 10-09-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7903/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
247UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs P.C. RAMAKRISHNAYYA – [2010] 10 S.C.R. 414
Judge Name: AFTAB ALAM,RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
. The respondent challenged the punishment order before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, E Hyderabad, in QA no.531 of 2004. The challenge to the punishment order was mainly on the ground that the punishment order was passed on the basis of an invalid departmental inquiry
Date of decision : 18-08-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6743/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
248UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs R. VASUDEVA MURTHY AND ORS. – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 978
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,DEEPAK VERMA
notification was issued on 23rd August 1993 by the Ministry of Communication, Department of Telecommunications dealing with the same subject as mentioned hereinabove. This Notification was issued in the light of various orders passed E by the central administrative tribunal and various High Courts from required to consider the said matter in the light of the judgments of various High Courts, which we shall do now. D 10. The Union of India, feeiing aggrieved by the Order passed by central administrative tribunal , Bangalore had filed a Writ Petition before a Division Bench of the High Court
Date of decision : 06-08-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9113/2003 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
249  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. Vs SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA AND ANR. – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 942
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,S.S. NIJJAR
, this Court was considering the decision of the central administrative tribunal which had held F that in considering the question of preferring the decree holders in Civil Engineering to Diploma holders in the same discipline, the case of the decree holders was to be preferred on account of their
Date of decision : 03-08-2010 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/20558/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
250  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs MAHAVEER C. SINGHVI – [2010] 9 S.C.R. 246
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,J.M. PANCHAL,CYRIAC JOSEPH
the order before the central administrative tribunal . It was submitted that the order was passed because the F respondent protested against the manner in which he had been deprived of his choice of German as his language allotment by deliberately altering the rules of allotment of languages which the order of 13th June, 2002, came to be passed and the manner in which the same was dealt with by the Central F Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court. 3. The case made out by the Respondent .before the central administrative tribunal , is that he was deployed to the East Asia
Date of decision : 29-07-2010 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/27702/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
251UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs MISS PRITILATA NANDA – [2010] 8 S.C.R. 733
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,A.K. GANGULY
authorities of South Eastern Railway, but without success. She then filed O.A. No. 112 of 1996 in Cuttack Bench of the central administrative tribunal G (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The Tribunal passed an interim order and made it clear that any future appointment of physically handicapped candidate
Date of decision : 16-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5646/2010 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned
252DINESH CHANDRA PANEY Vs HIGH COURT OF M.P. & ANR. – [2010] 8 S.C.R. 37
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,SWATANTER KUMAR
jurisdiction under Article 136 – M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 – G r. 14(8) – Principles of natural justice – Interpretation of Statutes – A,9vocates Act, 1961 – s. 2(i) – Central Administrative – Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – r. 2(e) – Constitution of
Date of decision : 08-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2622/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
253UNION’OF INDIA & ORS. Vs JAGDISH PANDEY & ORS. – [2010] 7 S.C.R. 979
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,SWATANTER KUMAR
of H 984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R. A the Calcutta High Court dated 2nd March, 2005 dismissing, the Writ Petition filed by the Union of India against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated 18th January, 2002
Date of decision : 08-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/365/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
254NARESH KUMAR Vs DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY AND ORS. – [2010] 8 S.C.R. 627
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,SWATANTER KUMAR
‘DAE’) were transferred en masse on deputation to the Corporation vide notification dated 4th September, 1987. E The conditions of service were finalized and contained in the Office Memorandum dated 26th May, 1994 which came to be challenged before the central administrative tribunal . The
Date of decision : 08-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3138/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
255GOVT. OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY & ANR. Vs RAVI PRAKASH GUPTA & ANR. – [2010] 7 S.C.R. 851
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH
order dated 7th April, 2008, passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, C in O.A. No.1397 of 2007, filed by the Respondent No.1 herein, and allowing the reliefs prayed for therein. 2. The Respondent No.1 is a visually handicapped person who suffers from 100 Court. The same was F G H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 7 S.C.R A subsequently withdrawn since it was the central administrative tribunal only which had jurisdiction to entertain such matters at the first instance. The Respondent No.1, accordingly, withdrew the Writ Petition, with
Date of decision : 07-07-2010 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/14889/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
256EAST COAST RAILWAY & ANR. ETC. Vs MAHADEV APPA RAO & ORS. – [2010] 7 S.C.R. 908
Judge Name: AFTAB ALAM,T.S. THAKUR
posts of Chief Typists, and its result was announced on 22.11.2006. On a representation made 8 by some of the unsuccessful candidates, the test was cancelled by order dated 14.12.2006. The said order was challenged before the central administrative tribunal . A fresh typewriting test was held on [2010] 7 S.C.R. A the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench in OA No.748 of 2006 set aside. 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam, issued a notification proposing to B conduct a written/practical typewriting test for filling up the vacant
Date of decision : 07-07-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4964/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
257  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF ORISSA & ANR. Vs RAJKISHORE NANDA & ORS. – [2010] 7 S.C.R. 301
Judge Name: B.S. CHAUHAN,SWATANTER KUMAR
names appeared in the Select List and were not offered appointment, filed applications before central administrative tribunal seeking direction to offer them appointment. The Tribunal concluded that appointments were to be offered to all the B candidates till the entire Select List stood
Date of decision : 03-06-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2808/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
258PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Vs MEGH RAJ GARG AND ANOTHER – [2010] 7 S.C.R. 172
Judge Name: G.S. SINGHVI,C.K. PRASAD
request for correction of date of birth made after thirty five years of his induction into the service and whether the central administrative tribunal was justified in allowing the B original. application filed by him. While reversing the order of the Tribunal, this Court observed: “A Government
Date of decision : 20-05-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1591/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
259  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ORS. Vs B. ANIL KUMAR & ORS. – [2010] 6 S.C.R. 806
Judge Name: MARKANDEY KATJU,A.K. PATNAIK
by the Fourth Pay Commission. G 3. Aggrieved, the respondents moved the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 827 of 2002 and by order dated 22.01.2003 the Tribunal allowed the O.A. declaring that the respondents are entitled to the re submitted that some of the aggrieved Assistant Superintendents, who have been denied the benefit of special pay of Rs.75/-, had filed O.A. No.695 of 1990 before the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench, and O.A. E No.1232 of 1997 before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad
Date of decision : 11-05-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8273/2004 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
260UNION OF INDIA Vs RAMESH RAM & ORS. ETC. – [2010] 6 S.C.R. 698
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,S.H. KAPADIA,R.V. RAVEENDRAN,B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,P. SATHASIVAM
application before the central administrative tribunal challenging Rule 16(2) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, contending that F adjustment of OBC merit candidates against the vacancies reserved for OBCs was illegal. The Tribunal held that meritorious OBC candidates who were selected on inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) and D violative of Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution of India?” and (iii) “Whether the order of the central administrative tribunal was valid to the extent that it relied on Anurag Patel v. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and Others (2005) 9 SCC
Date of decision : 07-05-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4310/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
261A.K. BEHERA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2010] 6 S.C.R. 335
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,DALVEER BHANDARI,J.M. PANCHAL
Central . Administrative Tribunal – Abolition of post of Vice-Chairman by the Amerldment Act – Constitutionality of – Held: Cannot be regarded as unconstitutional – By abolition . of post of Vice-Chairman no anomalous situation is sought .to be introduced in the structure as well as functioning and D · administration of the J Tribunals – Post of Vice-Chairman in Tribunal had created al’I avoidable three tier institution and resulted in anomalies in qualifications, age ‘of retirement, service conditions – By the amending Act all Members of central administrative tribunal have been – Held: Cannot be regarded as unconstitutional – Concept of security of tenure does not apply to such appointments. s. 1 OA – Prescribing different conditions of service for B Members of central administrative tribunal on basis of their appointment under unamended Rules and amended Rules
Date of decision : 06-05-2010 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/261/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
262THE ADMINISTRATOR UNION TERRITORY OF DADAR & NAGAR HAVEL Vs GULABHIA M. LAD – [2010] 5 S.C.R. 309
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
misconduct of the respondent has C been proved and after following the prescribed procedure, the Disciplinary Authority ordered his removal from service and the departmental appeal against that order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority, whether central administrative tribunal was five stages with cumulative effect. 6. The order of punishment dated April 23, 2004 which was confirmed in departmental appeal by the Appellate Authority B vide order dated March 8, 2006 came to be challenged by the respondent before the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench at Mumbai
Date of decision : 28-04-2010 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/3933/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
263S.R. SRINAVASA AND ORS. Vs S. PADMAVATHAMMA – [2010] 4 S.C.R. 981
Judge Name: V.S. SIRPURKAR,S.S. NIJJAR
B(Technica/) Recruitment Rules, 1965 – rr. 5 and 11 (1 ). Promotion of appellant nos. 1 to 7 to the posts of Assistant Engineers, Public Works Department was challenged by respondent nos. 2 to 7, before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal dismissed the C application holding that Junior Engineers, who were 8 formerly Section Officers working in the Public Works and Local Administration Department of Government of Pondicherry, filed O.A. No. 552 of 1989 in the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and in its judgment and order dated
Date of decision : 22-04-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4623/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
264UNION OF INDIA Vs ALOK KUMAR – [2010] 5 S.C.R. 35
Judge Name: AFTAB ALAM,SWATANTER KUMAR
February, 2008 has filed the present appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The High Court declined to interfere with the Order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the F Tribunal’) wherein the Tribunal, in exercise of its powers under Section 19 of the central administrative tribunal Act had set aside the orders of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. However, the High Court granted liberty to the Discipiinary Authority to conduct the inquiry G afresh from the stage of
Date of decision : 16-04-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3369/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
265M. JAGDISH VYAS AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2010] 3 S.C.R. 1086
Judge Name: B. SUDERSHAN REDDY,S.S. NIJJAR
.4351/2007 has been filed against the order of central administrative tribunal (CAT) dated F 17 .11. 2005 in 0 .A. No. 116/2005 whereby the CAT has dismissed the O.A following the decision of the Rajasthan High Court which is the subject matter of the two above noted appeals. We propose to dispose of all the aforesaid appeals by this common judgment. G 2. The appellants had challenged the declaration of results of deputationists who had appeared in the Examination for Junior Accounts Officer (JAO), Part-11 dated 29.08.2002 in the central administrative tribunal (CAT) Jodhpur Bench
Date of decision : 29-03-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4345/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
266UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER Vs HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS – [2010] 3 S.C.R. 755
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. GANGULY
on 25th August, 2005 re-fixing H the cadre strength in the State of Uttar Pradesh. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. v. HEMRAJ SINGH 763 CHAUHAN & ORS. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] 11. Challenging the said notification, the respondents A herein approached central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench affidavit of the appellant, filed before central administrative tribunal , the following stand has been categorically taken:- “It is submitted that the last cadre strength of the IAS cadre of unified cadre of Uttar Pradesh was notified on 30.04.1998. Therefore, as per Rule 4(2) of the IAS (Cadre
Date of decision : 23-03-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2651/2010 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
267RAJEEV KUMAR & ANR. Vs HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & ORS. – [2010] 3 S.C.R. 572
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. GANGULY
* which embody a rule of law E in view of Article 141 of Constitution – central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – r. 17 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 141 – Service Law. Two original applications were filed before central administrative tribunal (CAT) by the respondents Court and they were not parties before central administrative tribunal . Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The approach made to the High Court for 8 the first time by the appellants in respect of their service disputes over which central administrative tribunal (CAT ) has jurisdiction
Date of decision : 23-03-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2653/2010 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
268UNION OF INDIA Vs R.K. CHOPRA – [2010] 2 S.C.R. 220
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
. Respondent was later dismissed from service on 04.08.2005 since he was convicted by the Criminal Court vide its judgment dated 30.03.2002. H 226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [201 O] 2 S.C.R. A 4. The Respondent after dismissal from service approached the central administrative tribunal (Principal
Date of decision : 01-02-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1096/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
269STATE OF UTIARANCHAL Vs BALWANT SINGH CHAUFAL & OTHERS – [2010] 1 S.C.R. 678
Judge Name: DALVEER BHANDARI,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
the central administrative tribunal could not be held to be illegal or wrong on the ground that he was more than sixty two years old. c 17. In Baishnab Patnaik & Others v. The State AIR 1952 Orissa 60, the appointment of a person to the Advisory Board under the Preventive Detention Act was
Date of decision : 18-01-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1134/2002 | Disposal Nature : Hearing Adjourned
270UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs KARTICK CHANDRA MONDAL AND ANR. – [2010] 1 S.C.R. 1099
Judge Name: J.M. PANCHAL,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
whereby the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court E upheld the direction given by the central administrative tribunal [for short ‘CAT’] toabsorb the respondents in any suitable post commensurate with their qualifications. 2. The issue that is, therefore, canvassed before this Court F by the
Date of decision : 15-01-2010 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2090/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
271DIRECTOR, C.B.I. & ANR. Vs D.P. SINGH – [2009] 16 S.C.R. 571
Judge Name: MARKANDEY KATJU,RAJENDRA MAL LODHA
, 1977 when he was initially appointed to the post of Dy.S.P. in CBI. No favorable response on his representation was received by the respondent. He, then, approached Central ‘ Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi by ~ filing original application praying therein that
Date of decision : 16-12-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1485/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
272UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DIPAK MALI – [2009] 16 S.C.R. 564
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,MARKANDEY KATJU
suspension would not be valid after a period of ninety days unless it was extended after review for a further period before the expiry of ninety days, G respondent approached the Central Administrative ·- .. Tribunal contending that the suspension order dated ~ . 10.8.2002, having not been period E envisaged under sub-rule (6) thereof. [Para 3 and 6) [567- H; 568-A-E-F] ·~ 1.2. The central administrative tribunal rightly held ‘ that having regard to sub-rules (6) and (7) of r.10, the F review for modification or revocation of the order of suspension was required to be done before June, 2004, but as a Review Committee was not constituted, the respondent’s suspension was not reviewed as required by the amended Rules. The respondent, therefore, claimed that the suspension order must be deemed to have lapsed and accordingly, he approached the central administrative tribunal by
Date of decision : 15-12-2009 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL)/6661/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
273UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs M. K. SARKAR – [2009] 16 S.C.R. 249
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
amount received under the Provident Fund Scheme (by way of adjustment against the arrears of pension that would become payable to him on acceptance of his request for switch over to the pension scheme). The said request was not accepted. The B respondent therefore approached the Central Administrative Tribunal , in OA No.657 of 1999, seeking a direction to the Railway Administration to permit him to exercise an option to switch over to pension scheme. The Tribunal by order dated ~ 11.2.2004 disposed of the application by directing the c appellants to take a decision on the option. In fact, he retired from service of the Heavy Engineering Corporation without any pension as that Corporation had also 0 no pension scheme. The respondent therein approached the ~ central administrative tribunal in 1993 alleging that he came I to know about the said option only in 1993
Date of decision : 08-12-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8151/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
274UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs V.D. DUBEY (DEAD) BY LRS. – [2009] 16 S.C.R. 279
Judge Name: J.M. PANCHAL,K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
respondent approached the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench filing O.A. No. 473/ 2002. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the Railway Administration to fix the pension of the respondent H adding to his service, the period by which the respondent at the UNION OF INDIA AND Medical Officer through Union Public Service Commission and the respondent rejoined service in Central Railway. Respondent also claimed the benefit F of the Rules which we have referred to in the earlier part of the judgment. The same was denied, hence, he approached the central administrative tribunal which
Date of decision : 08-12-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/523/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
275SURENDER KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2009] 15 S.C.R. 312
Judge Name: V.S. SIRPURKAR,DEEPAK VERMA
. Hence the delinquent officer moved the central administrative tribunal . The central administrative tribunal also agreed with the findings as also the punishment awarded by the department. Further a writ petition was filed before the Bombay High Court. G However that writ petition was also
Date of decision : 21-10-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3811/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
276IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER Vs IN RE: CRL. INTIMIDATION OF CAT MEMBER – [2009] 13 S.C.R. 580
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,P. SATHASIVAM,B.S. CHAUHAN
the suitability of the senior police official to be in service – Direction to Central and State Governments to provide E minimum courtesy and adequate security to Members of CAT. A Judicial Member of central administrative tribunal (CAT) during his official stay in a Guest House of the. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that Shri B.V. Rao, Judicial Member of central administrative tribunal (hereinafter called ‘CAT’) was asked by D the Hon’ble Chairman of the CAT to hold the Circuit Court at Ranchi, Jharkhand from 18.2.2008 to 22.2.2008. After
Date of decision : 25-08-2009 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/23/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
277UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs MURALIDHARA MENON & ANR. – [2009] 12 S.C.R. 540
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
passed by a Division Bench of the H 544 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Petition No.25155 ~. of 2003 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents herein from a judgment and order dated 10.10.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Ernakulam in OA Nos.728 of 2000 and 782 of 2000. B 3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Respondents herein were working in different States. They filed an application for their transfer to the State of ‘Kerala Charge’ from ‘Gujarat Charge’ on or about 14.5.1990 transfer was issued. -….,.,. 5. Respondents thereafter filed representations. The request made therein was not acceded to. They filed original c applications before the central administrative tribunal . It may be placed on record that one of the employees, Sri Nair, had filed a similar the ‘Kerala Charge’ to accommodate them. F 7. central administrative tribunal was approached again by the respondents which was marked as OA No.728 of 2000 and 782 of 2000. By reason of a judgment and order dated 10.10.2002, the Tribunal dismisse>d the said application holding that the cases
Date of decision : 04-08-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5079/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
278SOUTHERN RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSN. AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2009] 12 S.C.R. 429
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
from duty i.e. D “J( from the date of Dismissal from Service (31.01.2004) to the date of joining for duty on reinstatement in service after the receipt of this advice will be treated as ‘Non-Duty’.” — 12. All the five delinquent employees filed Original E Applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Madras Bench against the said orders. ‘I” 13. The Tribunal framed the following three issues for determination :- “(i) Whether the order of dismissal was approved and F issued by the competent authority? (ii) Whether the decision not to hold the enquiry under the
Date of decision : 04-08-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4835/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
279PRABHJOT SINGH MAND & ORS. Vs BHAGWANT SINGH & ORS. – [2009] 12 S.C.R. 143
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
recruits and promotees – In first round of litigation, direct recruits held to be entitled to be promoted to /AS, by Supreme Court – UPSC recommending appointment of direct recruit and reversion of promotee’s wrongly appointed- Promotees application before 0 central administrative tribunal – Interim. The six other officers, including respondent No. 1, who A were promoted on the basis of old seniority list of 1993 and as the promotion was subject to the decision of Supreme Court, were required to be reverted back. Respondent No. 1 filed application before central administrative tribunal challenging
Date of decision : 29-07-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6253/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
280UNION OF INDIA Vs DEVENDRA KUMAR PANT & ORS. – [2009] 11 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,P. SATHASIVAM
was therefore once again called upon to present himself before the authorized Medical c Officer for medical test and certification. 5. Being aggrieved, the re~pondent filed OA No.395/1998 before the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow Bench, praying that the promotion order dated 30.6.1997 he was informed that he was not being called for viva voce as he had been declared medically unfit, was challenged before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal held that the provisions cf the Act and newly E introduced para 189A of IREM which laid down that there shall be no
Date of decision : 09-07-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4668/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
281M/S. EASTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Vs ANIL BADYAKAR & ORS. – [2009] 9 S.C.R. 480
Judge Name: TARUN CHATTERJEE,H.L. DATTU
meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the central administrative tribunal acted illegally and wholly :r
Date of decision : 15-05-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3597/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
282MAHARANI DEVI & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2009] 9 S.C.R. 530
Judge Name: TARUN CHATTERJEE,V.S. SIRPURKAR
ground and accordingly the competent officer had rejected her representation. The v D appellants, therefore, filed an original application before the iii- central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, Patna ~· (hereinafter called ‘the Tribunal’). It was pointed out that there ‘1 …. was a
Date of decision : 15-05-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3581/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
283UNION OF INDIA Vs RAMESH RAM & ORS. – [2009] 9 S.C.R. 775
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,P. SATHASIVAM,J.M. PANCHAL
is not placed at disadvantageous position vis-a-vis other candidates of his category. G 3. Certain OBC candidates filed Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (CAT) challenging Rule 16(2). It was contended that adjustment of OBC merit candidates against. “”‘ 5. Challenging the order of the central administrative tribunal , the Union of India and other aggrieved persons preferred Writ Petitions before the High Court of Judicature at D ~ Madras. Some got themselves impleaded in the said proceedings. By the impugned order dated 20.03.2008, the High
Date of decision : 14-05-2009 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/13571/2008 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
284UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs PARUL DEBNATH & ORS. – [2009] 9 S.C.R. 969
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,CYRIAC JOSEPH
Original Application before the central administrative tribunal seeking directions to the appellants – administrative authorities to prepare an appropriate F Scheme for regularisation of their services as they were continuing in service ranging from 12-23 years without any break, and to give them on.) and O.A. No.28/AN/2002 (S. Selva Raj & Ors. Vs. Union oUndia & Ors.), before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair, for directions to be issued to the respondents herein to prepare G an appropriate/ reasonable scheme- for regularization of the
Date of decision : 06-05-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3379/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
285HARMINDER KAUR & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2009] 7 S.C.R. 1050
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
application G for their regularization before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the appellants had no right to be regularised in service i • and their appointment ·has to come to an end on their replacement by the regularly selected teachers. Appellants, contending that they were entitled to be E absorbed in the services of the Education Department, filed applications .for their regularization before the central administrative tribunal (for short, “the Tribunal”) on the premise that the respondent-Administration could not have issued
Date of decision : 06-05-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3337/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
286DIR., CENT. MARINE FISHERIES RES INST. & ORS. Vs A. KANAKKAN & ORS. – [2009] 7 S.C.R. 552
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 552 A DIR., CENT. MARINE FISHERIES RES INST. & ORS. v. -t A. KANAKKAN & ORS. Civil Appeal No. 5236 of 2008 / .- B MAY 5, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Service Law – Pay – Parity in – Claim of – Original application dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal as . p_arred by time – In another case similarly situated employees I- c granted such pay scale by Supreme Court – On the basis of I- · the judgment of Supreme Court, the claimants granted pay- — scale as claimed by Office Order — Subsequently Office order withdrawn finding the posts were under the functfonal group “Field/Farm Technician” of Technical Service Rules of ICAR. · Relying on or on the basis of the decision of the Andhra G Pradesh High Court, respondents herein filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal in 1988. The said, however, appears that the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench, Cuttack on an application filed by the Central Rice Research Institute in its 0 judgment dated 6.3.1994 passed in OA No.182 of 1991, relying on or on the basis of the decisions of the other benches of the Central
Date of decision : 05-05-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5236/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
287PINAKI CHATTERJEE & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2009] 5 S.C.R. 368
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
against the orc!er of the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, Circuit Ranchi passed in OA No.604 of 1997 and OA No.398 E of 1998, was dismissed. 3. Appellants were directly appointed in Group ‘C’ posts except serial No.5 in the Electrical Department of the Railway Electrification Project. As despite working for a long time, their services were not regularized, they filed two original F applications before the central administrative tribunal , Patna, Circuit Bench, Ranchi, praying, inter alia, for a direction upon the respondents to finalise their regular absorption in the
Date of decision : 31-03-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2053/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
288STATE OF BIHAR Vs UPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH & OTHERS – [2009] 4 S.C.R. 866
Judge Name: MARKANDEY KATJU,G.S. SINGHVI
by the central administrative tribunal which had directed the Union Public Service Commission to relax the age requirement in the respondent’s case, elucidated the meaning of the expression “equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to public employment” in the following C
Date of decision : 20-03-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1741/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
289UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs B. ANNATHURAI & ANR. – [2009] 2 S.C.R. 825
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
by which the High Court F upheld the common order dated 11.8.2005 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant- Union of India. G 3. By the aforesaid order the Tribunal quashed. Both the respondents filed separate O.A. before the A central administrative tribunal , Chennai Bench, (for short ‘Tribunal’) praying for setting aside the DPC proceedings held on 20.4.1-999 and 23.12.1999 respectively. They stated that the· appellants are unhappy with them for repeatedly
Date of decision : 20-02-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1128/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
290PARMANAND SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2009] 1 S.C.R. 668
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,A.K. GANGULY
. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the appellant. Before the High Court, challenge B was to the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench (in short the ‘CAT
Date of decision : 28-01-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/478/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
291UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHANTIRANJAN SARKAR – [2009] 1 S.C.R. 242
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,J.M. PANCHAL
representations were not responded to, he filed an original application before H 246 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench, Kolkata. B c D E The said original application was dismissed on 12.9.2003 on · the ground of limitation as
Date of decision : 13-01-2009 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/103/2009 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
292C.S.I.R & ORS. Vs RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL & ANR. – [2008] 17 S.C.R. 1378
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
CHANDRA AGRAWAL & 1381 ANR. other date. They could have even picked up the date of· A the judgment passed by the central administrative tribunal . By choosing 2~5.1997 as the cut off date, no illegali~y was committed. Ex facie, it cannot be said to be ‘ arbitrary. However, High Court proceeded against a judgment and order dated 7.5.2003 passed by a Division Bench F of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow whereby and whereunder an order dated 22 .. 12.2000 passed by the central administrative tribunal in Original G Application No.151 of 1995 as also the
Date of decision : 19-12-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1716/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
293UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs PRAKASH KUMAR TANDON – [2008] 17 S.C.R. 855
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
. 2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 12.05.2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Madhya F Pradesh High Court whereby and whereunder a writ petition .r-1 filed by the appellant herein from a judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal allowing the
Date of decision : 17-12-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7349/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
294UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SATYA BRATA CHOWDHURY & ORS. – [2008] 17 S.C.R. 892
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
dismissing the writ petitions filed by appellants from a judgment and order dated 3.6.2004 passed by the central administrative tribunal in Original Application No.1254 of 2000 and 10th February 2004 passed by the Tribunal in G Original Application No.1458 of 1997. .. i- 3. The short question which, notice that the only contention C raised by the appellant before the Tribunal, as also before the High Court, was that the recruitment Procedure in the Eastern Railway Administration was different for the Time-keepers. It has been held not to be so. The judgment of the central administrative tribunal dated
Date of decision : 17-12-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7353/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
295SOMESH TIWARI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2008] 17 S.C.R. 711
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
B .respondents themselves, was ‘harsh’. The competent authority of appellant did not. consider his initial \ representation. Admittedly an order of stay was passed by the central administrative tribunal while disposing of O.A. No. 897 of 2005 dated 27th September, 2005. By c reason of the said COURT REPORTS [2008] 17 S.C.R. A compassionate and humanitarian grounds, he may be retained at Bhopal for at least one year. The said representation was r not responded to. 7. In the aforementioned factual backdrop, he filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur Bench B
Date of decision : 16-12-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7308/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
296UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs G. RAJANNA & ORS. – [2008] 15 S.C.R. 293
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER,D.K. JAIN
by central administrative tribunal on the ground that the incumbents did not possess the requisite qualification for the higher post – Allowed by the High Court – HELD: The observation of the Tribunal to the effect that the <! employees cannot claim scale of Lower Division Clerks by o
Date of decision : 15-10-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6590/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
297T. JAYAKUMAR Vs A. GOPU & ANR. – [2008] 13 S.C.R. 791
Judge Name: TARUN CHATTERJEE,AFTAB ALAM
application was unsigned. Therefore, he submitted second application. But the same G was not submitted within time. Respondent No. 1 was called for the interview. Ultimately appellant was selected and appointed for the post. Respondent No. 1 challenged his appointment. central administrative tribunal allowed Judgment of the Court was delivered by H 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. Leave granted 2. A little lapse by the respondent authority (Respondent no.2 before this court) coupled with a somewhat unwarranted interference by the central administrative tribunal , Madras
Date of decision : 22-09-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5766/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
298UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DEO NARAIN & ORS. – [2008] 13 S.C.R. 402
Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
– ~ ~ niority in the parent department. In view of their low posi- tion in the seniority list, they were not considered for pro- motion to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). They filed applications before central administrative tribunal G aggrieved by their non-consideration and non-promotion. Tribunal by the High Court of Delhi° on January 30, 2002 in Civil Writ Petition No. 6281 of 1999. By the said judgment, the High Coun confirmed the judgment and order dated April 30, 1999 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Delhi (‘CAT’ for short) in Original Application No. 2146 of 1998. 2
Date of decision : 15-09-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8017/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
299KUNNASHADA MUTHUKOYA Vs ADMINISTRATOR U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP AND ANR. – [2008] 12 S.C.R. 917
Judge Name: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,P. SATHASIVAM
recruitment qualifications should be raised; and’that ‘t-· the revised pay scale of Rs.800-1150 given to the appellant was. therefo,re in accordance with the fourth pay commission’s ;. c recommendations. 3. Feeling aggrieved the appellant approached the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam
Date of decision : 29-08-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3537/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
300CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, N.S.S.O. & ORS. Vs BISWA BHUSAN NANDI – [2008] 12 S.C.R. 1060
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,CYRIAC JOSEPH
technical c or professional experience – Relaxed for matriculate ex­ servicemen with 15 years of defence service – Candidate-ex­ servicemen applied and qualified for the post, but denied appointment – central administrative tribunal upholding denial – High Court holding him eligible for permitted to sit in the written examination. He was also interviewed. An office memorandum was, however, issued on 12.2.1996 whereby he was denied appointment. B 6. An original application was filed by the respondent ;t- before the central administrative tribunal challenging the validity of
Date of decision : 29-08-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5304/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
301ANIL MISHRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2008] 11 S.C.R. 542
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,MARKANDEY KATJU
. before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, challenging the adverse entry made to him for the year H 2000-01 vide letter dated 16.1.2002. ANIL MISHRA v. UNION OF INDIA 545 & ORS. [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.] +- 5. Against that adverse entry he had earlier filed a repre- A
Date of decision : 30-07-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4724/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
302UNION OF INDIA Vs PUSHPA RANI & OTHERS – [2008] 11 S.C.R. 440
Judge Name: B.N. AGRAWAL,G.S. SINGHVI
have g6n~ through the judgment of the· Central E Administrative Tribunal at Jabalpur Bench in Ashok Kumar Shrivastava & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (T.A. No.139/86) decided on 24th March, 1987 against which the special leave petition is filed. We agree with the reasons given by the Central : Administrative Tribunal for the.conclusion it has reached. We F hereby affirm the judgment of the Central Administrative · Tribunal . The Special Leave Petition is dismissed.” 45. In O.A. No.414 of 1987, N.K. Saini & Others vs. The Director General, ROSO & Others, the applicant challenged the question of application of policy of reservation in the matter of G promotion to the upgraded pos
Date of decision : 29-07-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6934/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
303UNION OF !NOIA Vs S.P. SINGH – [2008] 7 S.C.R. 989
Judge Name: TARUN CHATTERJEE,H.S. BEDI
subsistence allowance. The orders dated 30.8.2005 and 16.9.2005 were challenged by the respondent before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal observed that the order dated 30.8.2005 had been dispatched to Nagpur for further transmission to the respondent at Hyderabad though he was central administrative tribunal • (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the F Tribunal”). Before the Tribunal, it was contended on behalf of the respondent that as the three months’ notice period for voluntary retirement had expired on 31st August, 2005 and the order of
Date of decision : 07-05-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3365/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
304THE TELEPHONE DISTRICT MANAGER & ORS. Vs KESHAB DEB – [2008] 7 S.C.R. 835
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
-. Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – s.28 – Held: Does not bar the jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal – It saves the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal. Respondent had been appointed as a casual labour on daily wages. He was terminated from service pursuant to an alleged central administrative tribunal , holding that in view of the provision contained under s.14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the writ petition was not maintainable. C Before the Administrat;ve Tribunal, the appellants in their written statement inter alia raised a contention that the
Date of decision : 06-05-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3324/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
305N. LOKNATHAM Vs CHAIRMAN, TELECOM COMMISSION & ORS. – [2008] 6 S.C.R. 857
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
unsuccessful. They filed an original 857 H 858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R. A application before the central administrative tribunal alleging that certain questions in one of the question paper were framed out of the prescribed syllabus, praying for directions against the respondents to
Date of decision : 22-04-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2896/2008 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
306K.K. TIWARI & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2008] 6 S.C.R. 705
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
Allahabad at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition c No. 10242/2000 and Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 18114/2000. By the common judgment under challenge, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions whereby the order dated 81h February, 2000 passed by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter
Date of decision : 21-04-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/571/2002 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
307VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. & ANR. Vs AJIT KUMAR KAR & ORS. – [2008] 5 S.C.R. 871
Judge Name: P.P. NAOLEKAR,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
dated 21.1.1974 intimated D that existing percentage of running allowance would continue for the time being, though it was under revision. In a subsequent letter dated 22.3.1976, the percentage was reduced to 45% retrospectively w.e.f. 1.4.1976 which order was quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in some other case. The Railway Board did not challenge the validity of the said order of the E Tribunal, but it issued two statutory notifications dated 5.12.1988, in which the percentage was reduced to 45% retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and to 55% retrospectively w.e.f
Date of decision : 01-04-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2338/2008 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
308NIRMAL CHANDRA SINHA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2008] 5 S.C.R. 635
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,MARKANDEY KATJU
filed an Original Application before the Central ~ Administrative Tribunal , which was rejected by the Tribunal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition which was partly allowed by the High Court granting him notional promotion to the post of General Manager w.e.f. F 13.7.96 but Railway. He was ‘ promoted to the post of General Manager on 29.11.1996. He D ( claimed notional promotion w.e.f. 13.3.1996 with consequential i, -t benefits. His O.A. was rejected by the central administrative tribunal , but against that order he filed a writ petition which was partially
Date of decision : 31-03-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8058/2001 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
309PROMOTEE TELECOM ENGINEERS FORUM & ORS. Vs D.S. MATHUR, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS – [2008] 5 S.C.R. 442
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
dismissed by this Court. . 6. The petitioners then assert that they had obtained similar orders from various Benches of the central administrative tribunal based on the principles laid down by the High Court of Allahabad and those judgments had attained finality in as much c as in most cases they Application before the central administrative tribunal as it amounted to a fresh C cause of action. 14. We were taken through the records of the earlier orders passed by this Court and it was tried to be justified that the seniority-lists were correctly prepared and the seniority was also correctly
Date of decision : 25-03-2008 | Case Number : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/248/2007 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
310UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs NAMAN SINGH SEKHAWAT – [2008] 5 S.C.R. 137
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
SINGH 139 SE KHA WAT -\ order of the appellate authority, respondent filed an A Original Application before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal directed the authorities to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. A writ petition filed thereagainst was dismissed. Respondent preferred an Original Application before … ~ the central administrative tribunal , Jaipur Bench questioning the said order of the disciplinary authority. By a judgment and order dated 23rd October, 2001, the Tribunal, upon considering the material at some details, held :- G “In the
Date of decision : 14-03-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/140/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
311SUBODH KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1107
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
dated 1989 – In 1991 promoted as /PS – In 1994, Officer claiming c for having been considered for promotion for the vacancies arising in 1988 and seeking year of allotment as 1984 instead of 1987 – central administrative tribunal rejecting the claim on the ground of delay and /aches – In writ eligible on that date. However, he had 1107 H 1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 3 S.C.R. A not pressed his claim for consideration for promotion in 1 1988 itself. He filed application before central administrative tribunal which was dismissed on the ground that the application suffered from
Date of decision : 05-03-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1776/2008 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
312MONI SHANKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – [2008] 3 S.C.R. 871
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
departmental appeal and review – Application before c central administrative tribunal – Allowed – Dismissal of writ petition by High Court holding that re-appreciation of evidence was not permissible by High Court – On appeal, held: Order of the Tribunal is justified – There was non-compliance of found guilty. A 871 H 872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R. I’ A penalty of reduction of his pay to the lowest scale of pay was given. Departmental appeal as well as revision was … dismissed. Appellant filed application before central administrative tribunal . Tribunal allowed
Date of decision : 04-03-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1729/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
313KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. Vs SATBIR SINGH MAHLA – [2008] 3 S.C.R. 631
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,MARKANDEY KATJU
“‘ KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. v. SATBIR SINGH MAHLA [MARKANDEY KAT JU, J.) 633 was passed against him by the disciplinary authority. The A respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority which rejected the appeal. 6. The respondent then filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jaipur. The Tribunal was of the view that the respondent committed the act of misconduct under mental 8 tension and he had submitted his written apology and that he has a family to maintain. Hence, the Tribunal was of the view that the punishment of removal from service
Date of decision : 29-02-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1666/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
314AFHQ/ISOs SOs (DP) ASSOCIATION & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1183
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,ALTAMAS KABIR,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, is set G _,, aside. ,,,,,… 4. The central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) allowed the said O.A. filed by Smt. Ammini Rajan & Ors. challenging the Select List of Assistants for H 1192 seniority list was done irrespective of the date of E appointment of the direct recruits and they could not be positioned higher than the Departmental Promotees. 9. After the constitution of the central administrative tribunal in the year 1985, the writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and
Date of decision : 19-02-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1384/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
315MANAGEMENT, THE ASSISTANT SALT COMMISSIONER Vs SECRETARY, CENTRAL SALT MAZDOOR UNION – [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1056
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
raised by the workmen was not H 1064 A B SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 2 S.C.R. . maintainable as the matter relating to service of a Central Government employee is required to be adjudicated before the central administrative tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals
Date of decision : 15-02-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1324/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
316L. PARMESWARAN Vs CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER & ORS. – [2008] 2 S.C.R. 1015
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
Department. B 4. Questioning the validity of the said order, he filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , ;..- Ernakulam inter alia contending that he could not have been ~ reverted to the post of Technician Grade Ill in the Electrical Division on the premise that it was his parent cadre. ~ I c 5. By reason of a judgment and order dated 11.11.2003, the central administrative tribunal dismissed the said original application opining: “5. In the face of the fact that the applicant was till his I r / D I regular appointment by R-1 order dated
Date of decision : 15-02-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1325/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
317UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs S. KRISHNAN & ANR. – [2008] 2 S.C.R. 604
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , F Chennai (in short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows: > The rdspondent was appointed as· Gangman by the Railway Department in the year 1.976. He claimed to be a G member of Scheduled Tribe, i.e
Date of decision : 08-02-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1103/2008 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
318V. SIVA KUMAR & ORS. Vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE & ORS. – [2008] 1 S.C.R. 206
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,P. SATHASIVAM
843of1997 was filed before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad challenging the revised seniority list dated 27.12.1996 and the promotion order dated 12.3.1997. In February, 1998 appellant Nos. 2,3,6,8 and 9 were promoted as store keepers on the basis of the revised seniority List
Date of decision : 08-01-2008 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2945/2001 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
319UNION OF INDIA Vs SMT. SADHANA KHANNA – [2007] 13 S.C.R. 742
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,MARKANDEY KATJU
of the respondent was that her juniors were included C in the select list but her name was not so included. Hence, she filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal . 8. Jn the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal the appellant herein (respondent before the Tribunal) alleged
Date of decision : 14-12-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8208/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
320UNION OF INDIA Vs S.R. DHINGRA AND ORS. – [2007] 13 S.C.R. 746
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,MARKANDEY KATJU
matters were pending before the Delhi High c Court, Punjab & Haryana High Court and central administrative tribunal and further proceedings in those cases were ordered to be stayed awaiting the judgment in the matter which was transferred to this Court by the order dated 9.5.2006. …. 3. The facts running allowance was fixed at 45% of the pay in the revised scale of pay. Thereafter by another amendment this was raised to 55% of the average pay. G ~ ,, 5. The validity of this amendment was challenged before the central administrative tribunal by means of a petition which was allowed by the
Date of decision : 14-12-2007 | Case Number : TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL)/106/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
321UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SHRI RAMESH SINGH RAJPUT – [2007] 13 S.C.R. 947
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,AFTAB ALAM
appointed, as he was found to be over-aged with reference to the date of birth in school certificates. G Respondent filed application before central administrative tribunal seeking direction for his appointment. At the time of arguments he pleaded that he was entitled to relaxation of2 years 947 H Court HELD: 1. From the record it appears that the authority did not issue any appointment order to the respondent on the ground that he gave a false date of birth. Stand of the respondent before central administrative tribunal (CAT) was that the date of birth of the respondent is 17.3.1977. In
Date of decision : 14-12-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5953/2007 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
322M.V. THIMMAIAH & ORS. Vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. – [2007] 13 S.C.R. 624
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,MARKANDEY KATJU
the unsuccessful candidates before the central administrative tribunal on grounds of ma/a.fide and D ; 1 arbitrariness. The Tribunal set aside the recommendations of the Selection Committee holding that the Selection Committee without application of mind had awarded marks to the selected in all the Special Leave Petitions. E 2. All these appeals arise against the common order dated 6.10.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court ofKarnataka while disposing of a bunch of petitions arising out of the common order dated 4.10.2004 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore
Date of decision : 13-12-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5883/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
323UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs NARENDRA SINGH – [2007] 13 S.C.R. 504
Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,J.M. PANCHAL
against the order dated May 12, E 2000 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur, Camp Indore (‘Tribunal’ for short) in Original Application No. 76of1997 and confirmed by the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh, – } Jabalpur (Indore Bench) on August 26, 2004 in Writ
Date of decision : 13-12-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5865/2007 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
324GENERAL MANAGER, NORTH WEST RAILWAY & ORS. Vs CHANDA DEVI – [2007] 13 S.C.R. 403
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
filed by the first respondent before C the central administrative tribunal questioning the validity of the said Rule. The same was allowed by a Judgment and Order dated 7.4.2004 relying on or on the basis of a decision of a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal at Ahmedabad Bench in Smt. Val/am
Date of decision : 12-12-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5833/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
325DEVISINGH MEENA Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2007] 12 S.C.R. 745
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,TARUN CHATTERJEE,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
was dismissed by the Authorities on the ground that by a subsequent order, the Minister agreed for non-inclusion of his name in the panel for promotion. His application claiming promotion was dismissed by central administrative tribunal . The order was further upheld by High Court in Writ Petition claim relates to the post of Senior Administrative Grade. He filed OA 245 of2001 before the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad Bench (for Short the “Tribunal”). Before that he had moved OA 8639 of 1997 making the grievance that was not granted the post of Chief G Commercial Manager, Senior
Date of decision : 30-11-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5543/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
326CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. Vs SMT. SUSHEELA PRASAD AND ORS. – [2007] 12 S.C.R. 585
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
directing consideration of their regularization-On appeal, held: Matter remitted to High Court for considering the matter in the light ofUma Devi’s case. The respondents (employees on contact basis) had filed application D before central administrative tribunal , seeking regularization of their High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition D No.13440 of 2004. The appellants had challenged the composite order dated 13.11.1997 passed in OA No.69111995 and OA No.89/1996 by the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur (in short ‘CAT’). The respondents had
Date of decision : 27-11-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5422/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
327B. RAMAKICHENIN@ BALAGANDHI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 12 S.C.R. 120
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,MARKANDEY KATJU
• ground that he did not have the two years experience after obtaining the M.Sc. degree. The appellant filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal contending that there was no requirement that the two years experience should be after obtaining the M.Sc. G degree and as he had the Masters degree -~- in agriculture. The appellant undoubtedly had such experience before obtaining his M.Sc. degree in agriculture. 9. Since the appellant was not called for the interview he filed OA. H 124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R. A No. 1045/97 before the central administrative tribunal , Chennai
Date of decision : 16-11-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5274/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
328UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 807
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
order dated 11.9.2000 passed in Original Application No.52 of 2000 by the central administrative tribunal directing to consider the question of grant of replacement pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the respondent, with consequential benefits in her favour. H 812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 Commission, Respondent filed a representation for upgradation of her pay­ scale which was not acceded to. She thereafter filed an application before the central administrative tribunal . By reason of an order dated F 11.9.2000, the learned Tribunal allowed the said application opining: G H
Date of decision : 01-11-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5087/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
329UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs CENTRAL ELECTRICAL & MECHANICAL ENGINEERING SERVICE (CE & MES) GROUP A (DIRECT RECRUITS) ASSOCIATION, CPWD AND ORS. – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 863
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
24.5.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CM Nos. 9506/2004 & 4393/2006 and W.P.(C) No. 13604/ ‘s 2004 & 13605/2004 affirming an Order dated 17.12.2003 passed by , the central administrative tribunal , Delhi Bench, Delhi in Original Application No. 864/2003. 3
Date of decision : 01-11-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5086/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
330UNION OF INDIA Vs B.M. JHA – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 661
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,MARKANDEY KATJU
) .,……. \ UNION OF INDIA A “· B.M.JHA OCTOBER 24, 2007 [A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU,JJ.) B )’– y· Service Law: Retrospective promotion-Claim for arrears of pay and c allowances from date of promotion-Allowed by central administrative tribunal as also by High Court-HELD Court as also the order dated 11.1.2000 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principle Bench. ) The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. H RP. Appeal allowed.
Date of decision : 24-10-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5128/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
331G.K. MOHAN AND ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 193
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,MARKANDEY KATJU
(MARKANDEY KA TJU, J.] 1998 etc. before the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench A seeking a direction to quash Rule 6(4)(a) of the Defence Research & Development Organization, Technical Cadre Recruit.Jlent Rules; 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’) as being violative of
Date of decision : 12-10-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5045/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
332S.P. INDU Vs THE GENERAL MANAGER, METRO RAILWAY AND ANR. – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 546
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
order dated 14.12.2001 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta. 3. Appellant joined South Eastern Railways as a Clerk in the year 1964. He was transferred in public interest to Metropolitan Transport D Project (Railway) in Calcutta on 17.10.1970. P.K. Gangopadhyay, the third respondent therefor. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Law G Officer on 30.1.1994. 6. Appellant, being not been promoted, filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta (CAT). By an order dated 30.8.1994, the General Manager (Metro Railway) was directed H
Date of decision : 12-10-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4884/2007 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
333PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. Vs V.K. KAPOOR AND ANR. – [2007] 11 S.C.R. 462
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
. KAPOOR 463 SupenisorGrade-A and Charge-man Grade-II were merged. The issue A of seniority led to the litigation and, ultimately, the central administrative tribunal by its order dated 9.7.1990 directed the department to refix notional seniority of the affected employees, as if all the applicants petition. It was contended for the appellants that in view of the judgment of the central administrative tribunal as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the appellants were not only entitled to be appointed as Charge- E man Grade-II, but also entitled to promotion to higher grades and respective
Date of decision : 12-10-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4862/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
334PRABIR BANERJEE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2007] 10 S.C.R. 694
Judge Name: ALTAMAS KABIR,D.K. JAIN
-Issuance of Transfer order by Cadre Controlling D Authority transferring petitioner and others from one zone to another- Application filed against the transfer order was dismissed by central administrative tribunal -Challenge to-Disposed of by High Court with leave to petitioners to submit a Commissionerate. The order was challenged by the petitioner and others before the central administrative tribunal on D the ground that inter-zonal transfers were not permitted in terms of the Circular dated March 9, 2004. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Aggrieved petitioner filed a
Date of decision : 05-10-2007 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/20706/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
335STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs SESHACHALAM – [2007] 10 S.C.R. 53
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
herein never B questioned the purported different treatment meted out to them by the State either by making representations or by filing any application before the central administrative tribunal . Only two of the employees did. Their applications were allowed, inter alia, on the premise that
Date of decision : 18-09-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1938/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
336UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs S. VINODH KUMAR AND ORS. – [2007] 10 S.C.R. 41
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,H.S. BEDI
qualified candidates-Unsuccessful c candidates seeking appointment against reserved post by lowering cut- off marks-Denied by central administrative tribunal -Allowed by High Court-On appeal, held : The candidates of general category can.wt be appointed against reserved posts-The Authority was having conducive to general merit of the candidates. Thereafter another application was filed and the same was dismissed B by the central administrative tribunal . In Writ Petition, High Court directed the concerned Authority to appoint the general category candidates by lowering the cut-off marks against
Date of decision : 18-09-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4347/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
337KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. Vs SHRI DHARMENDRA SHARMA – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 1007
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
of policy C decision-Correctness of-Held: A policy decision not to make appointment in Group ‘D’ posts taken by the appellant-organisation was not challenged by the respondent-Courts b<;/ow did not refer to the policy decision before arriving at the findings-Hence, direction of Central Administrative Tribunal to appellant-organisation to appoint the respondent on compassionate ground D against quota reserved for such posts, as affirmed by the High Court, cannot be maintained-However, [f the appellant at any point of time, adopt any compassionate appointment scheme and intends to make rejected by the authorities. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal , which was allowed by it directing the appellant to appoint the F respondent on compassionate ground. Despite the directions, prayer of the respondent was rejected by the appellant, Jaipur Bench, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. Challenge before the High Court was to the order dated G 26.11.2002 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Jaipur (in short ‘CAT’) in OA 35/i002. .. t 3. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: ( Father of the
Date of decision : 14-09-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4265/2007 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
338MUKESH KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 711
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,D.K. JAIN
, applied/or appointment on compassionate grounds­ Application rejected by authority-Appeal affirmed by appellate authority- 0.A. dismissed by central administrative tribunal -Challenge to-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: There is no indication as to the material on the basis of which the appellant moved central administrative tribunal by filing an OA, which was rejected by CAT on the ground that there was inordinate delay of 15 years in filing the application. The writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning correctness of the order of the CAT, was dismissed by the High Court
Date of decision : 05-09-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4058/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
339UNION OF INDIA Vs ARUN JYOTI KUNDU AND ORS. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 463
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
the claim of the incumbents and High Court erred in not setting aside the order of the Tribunal. Respondent, employees of Railways in typist cadre, filed an application before the central administrative tribunal for issuance of a direction to the appellant-Union of India to sanction the same; that the central administrative tribunal and the High Court had done this by granting the reliefs claimed and consequently they have acted outside their jurisdiction while exercising the power of judicial review; that a mandamus has been C issued to merge the cadre is not permissible; that the
Date of decision : 27-08-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2468/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
340SUKHDEO PANDEY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 369
Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,TARUN CHATTERJEE
Reserve Postman. Later, the appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal claiming arrears of salary for the period F he was not allowed to join the duty. Meanwhile it was detected that the appellant instead of being reinstated as EDBPM, was wrongly reinstated by. 11. In this conn.ection, it is pertinent to observe that the central administrative tribunal considered this aspect and rightly observed thus; “No doubt that the applicant was found fit for promotion to the cadre E of Postman vide Annexure A/I, but as made clear in the written statement, that
Date of decision : 24-08-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3888/2007 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
341THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY, SECUNDERABAD AND ORS. Vs G. RATNAM AND ORS. – [2007] 9 S.C.R. 259
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
central administrative tribunal as well as before the High Court for adjudication. In view of the pendency of the matters, the intervention application is rejected without expressing any opinion on its merits. F G H (Para 27) (274-C, HI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5033 Petition Nos. 1489/2002, 26165 and 25111 /200 l. By the impugned order, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants against the order of the central administrative tribunal [for short “the Tribunal”], Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad. The Tribunal allowed the original applications
Date of decision : 22-08-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5033/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
342K.V.S. AND ORS Vs JASPAL KAUR AND ORS. – [2007] 7 S.C.R. 969
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,D.K. JAIN
employee to change over from GPF to CPF Scheme-Incumbent, teacher, opted to continue in the CPF Scheme-New CPF Scheme number allotted to her-Later, she desired to change from CPF Scheme to GPF Scheme-Representation-Rejected by Authorities-Allowing original application, central administrative tribunal held she was not entitled G to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension Scheme as she had opted for CPF Scheme. She moved the central administrative tribunal (CAT). CAT held that she was entitled to claim benefit of GPF Scheme cum Pension -, Scheme. The order of CAT was challenged by the authorities
Date of decision : 06-06-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2876/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
343GOPAL SINGH Vs STATE CADRE FOREST OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. – [2007] 6 S.C.R. 586
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
central administrative tribunal claiming promotion to the post of Deputy G Conservator of Forests (DCF) contending that his ~t of AMM was equivalent to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF), which is a feeder post under 1963 Rules as amended in 1973; and that he was eligible for by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal” for short) was upset allowing the writ petitions. The appellant has also challenged the further orders passed by the High Court dismissing the Review Petitions filed by the appellant. The High Court vide its judgment
Date of decision : 15-05-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1041/2004 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
344UNION OF INDIA AND ANR . Vs P.M. RANGASAMI – [2007] 6 S.C.R. 693
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
this appeal is to the judgment F rendered by the Madras Bench of the central administrative tribunal (in short the ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal was of the view that the appellant no. I and its named functionary were guilty of contempt. However, another officer was exonerated. It was held that the
Date of decision : 15-05-2007 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/693/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
345KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN & ORS. Vs L.V. SUBRAMANYESWARA & ANR. – [2007] 6 S.C.R. 335
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,C.K. THAKKER
the central administrative tribunal . E F G H 3. The Tribunal dismissed the said transfer applications. Noticing that there had been no regular vacancies, it was held:- “13. Admittedly, all the applicants were appointed on adhoc basis for short spells by the Assistant Commissioner
Date of decision : 10-05-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8563/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
346UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs SUKANTA KAR AND ANR. – [2007] 6 S.C.R. 128
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
appellant-Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘UPSC’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant-UPSC questioning correctness of the order passed by the Central -“- Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the ‘Tribunal’). I- c 3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. It relates to the eligibility of respondent No. l for the post of Deputy Advisor (Training) in Central Public Health and Environmental Organisation of Urban
Date of decision : 08-05-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2387/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
347POST MASTER GENERAL, KOLKA TA AND ORS. Vs TUTU DAS (DUTTA) – [2007] 5 S.C.R. 1117
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
;. ‘f “””· ) POST MASTER GENERAL, KOLKA TA AND ORS. A V. TUTU DAS (DUTTA) MAY 2, 2007 [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] B Service Law: Daily wager substitute to EDA-Claim for regularization-Held: Neither the central administrative tribunal nor the High Court recorded a of India-Arts. 14, 16, 77, 162 and 309-Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-25F. D Respondent, a daily rated substitute to a regular EDA, claimed to have completed 240 days in one year prior to 7.5.1985. She was disengaged on 10.9.1987. She approached the central administrative tribunal claiming
Date of decision : 02-05-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2319/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
348UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SANGRAM KESHARINAYAK – [2007] 5 S.C.R. 896
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
Government Circular-Promotion given to junior of the employee-Initiation of departmental proceedings after the meeting of DPC and also after promotion of the junior- central administrative tribunal and High Court allowing promotion to the employee-On appeal, held: As per the Circular, Sealed application filed by the respondent before the Calcutta Bench of the central administrative tribunal , which was eventually transferred B ~ to the Cuttack Bench, praying for a direction to the appellants to promote him to the said post from the date when his junior was appointed, was allowed by a
Date of decision : 27-04-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3691/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
349MANAGEMENT OF COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK Vs SECRETARY, COIMBATORE DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR. – [2007] 5 S.C.R. 430
Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,TARUN CHATTERJEE
claim similar benefit which had been granted to 134 employees. 36. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda, [1989] 2 SCC 177, a similar mistake was committed by the central administrative tribunal which was E corrected by this Court. In that case, P, an employee was chargesheeted alongwith other two employees for preparing false pay bills and bogus identity card. All of them were found guilty. A minor punishment was imposed on two employees, but P was dismissed from service since he was the ‘mastermind’ of the plan. P approached the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal • ~’Y
Date of decision : 23-04-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2106/2007 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
350UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs T.V. PATEL – [2007] 5 S.C.R. 373
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,V.S. SIRPURKAR
central administrative tribunal (CAT) Ahmedbad Bench on various grounds. The Tribunal after considering various grounds urged before it, set aside the order dated 15.11.2000 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty. One of the grounds, E which persuaded the Tribunal to come to the
Date of decision : 19-04-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2067/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
351UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs A.N. MOHANAN – [2007] 5 S.C.R. 279
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,D.K. JAIN
was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASA YAT, J. I. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants. In E the writ petition challenge was made to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Emakulam Bench (in short the ‘CAT’) in O.A. No. 203 of2002. 3. The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. F 4. Departmental enquiry was started against the respondent on 3.8. I 999. The Departmental Promotion Committee (in short the ‘DPC’) made the selection on 1.11
Date of decision : 18-04-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2020/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
352SURINDER SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 4 S.C.R. 575
Judge Name: A.K. MATHUR,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
21.11.1997. D _.. “”” The appellant was selected through an open selection and was appointed as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA). Respondent no. 4 challenged before the central administrative tribunal the appointment of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that as per the Government High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.13280-CAT/2000. By the said order, the High Court confirmed the order recorded by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short “the CAT’) B in O.A. No. 171 HR/2000. 2. Briefly stated the
Date of decision : 30-03-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/143/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
353A.S. SASTRY Vs CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. – [2007] 4 S.C.R. 245
Judge Name: AR. LAKSHMANAN,ALTAMAS KABIR
~ A A.S. SASTRY v. CHIEF COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. MARCH 20, 2007 B [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] ~. Service Law: Pension-Petition filed by pensioner before his retirement from service c in central administrative tribunal against charges in a departmental inquiry charges were framed against him, which were challenged by the incumbent in the central administrative tribunal +- (CA 1). Since then. the petition is pending in CAT. He also made a prayer before F ~ the High Court for directions to CAT for expeditious disposal of the matter. High Court directed the
Date of decision : 20-03-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1527/2007 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
354STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs DES SANDHU – [2007] 4 S.C.R. 26
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
129 it was held by this Court that the.re was no G deliberate delay on the part of the workman. In that case nearly 5 years had been spent in pursuing the remedy before the central administrative tribunal . On the peculiar facts of the case this Court ordered reinstatement but restricted the
Date of decision : 15-03-2007 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/9042/2003 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
355SMT. KIRAN SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2007] 3 S.C.R. 382
Judge Name: C.K. THAKKER,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
consider the name of respondent No. 5. She approached the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, by way offiling O.A. No. 1 of 1996. The CAT issued notice to the opposite parties on 02.01.1996 and by an interim order permitted the E Superintendent of Post Offices to go on
Date of decision : 27-02-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1021/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
356S.T. RAMESH Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR . – [2007] 2 S.C.R. 819
Judge Name: AR. LAKSHMANAN,ALTAMAS KABIR
good”, “excellent” and “outstanding” throughout his career. The appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal for quashing of the communication of adverse remarks under various headings in the Annual Confidential Report for the G period from 16.10.1996 to 15.3.1997
Date of decision : 20-02-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/868/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
357UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs S. THIAGARAJAN AND ORS. – [2007] 2 S.C.R. 724
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
Conservator of Forest, a State Forest Service Officer was not included in the select list, for promotion to the Indian Forest Service. He made a representation, which was rejected by the authority concerned. Against this rejection the first respondent filed an 0.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal , which was allowed by the Tribunal. Against the order of the Tribunal the appellant, Union Public Service Commission, filed a writ petition before the High Court. Agreeing on the view taken by the Tribunal, High Court dismissed the writ petition. Hence the 724 U.P.S.C. v. S representation and that representation was rejected. Against this rejection the first respondent filed an 0.A. before the central administrative tribunal , which allowed the said application. 5. The contentions of the first respondent before the said Tribunal were: D {a) Even though he was fully
Date of decision : 15-02-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/782/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
358UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs S.K. GOEL AND ORS. – [2007] 2 S.C.R. 432
Judge Name: AR. LAKSHMANAN,ALTAMAS KABIR
of Central Excise and Customs. Being aggrieved, the first respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal dismissed the said application C and held that it was not necessary to communicate the remarks/grading which were not adverse or not below the appellants as upheld by the central administrative tribunal . 13. Learned Additional Solicitor General has also invited our attention to the judgment passed by the Tribunal as well as by the High Court. He also F -~ cited the following rulings: I. Union of India & Anr. v. Major Bahadur Singh
Date of decision : 12-02-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/689/2007 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
359PRASAR BHARATI Vs AMARJEET SINGH AND ORS. – [2007] 2 S.C.R. 160
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
administrative staff. Allegedly, such transfers were made with a view to optimize the use of man-power available with the Corporation so that every Station and Kendra became fully functional. The legality and/or validity of B the said orders of transfer were questioned before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh and C Ors., The writ petition filed by the appellants herein for quashing the said order of the central administrative tribunal has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana Higu Court by reason of the impugned judgment. 5. At the very outset, it may be noticed that a
Date of decision : 02-02-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3244/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
360I.C.M.R. AND ORS. Vs K. RAJYALAKSHMI – [2007] 1 S.C.R. 1097
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
or the other. Respondent prayed for regularisation of her services. She filed writ petition which was transferred to central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal noticed that although a declaration was taken that the project should be made a permanent one and its activities should be ultimately transferred to central administrative tribunal , Madras, in view of a notification issued by the Central Government under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. D E F 4. The Tribunal noticed that although a decision was taken that the project should be made a permanent one and
Date of decision : 17-01-2007 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4349/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
361SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES AND ORS. Vs R. VALASINA BABU – [2006] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 1094
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
cancellation of Caste Certificate on the ground that the certificate was not cancelled on the date when the charge memo was issued. Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant, relying on the order cancelling the Caste Certificate. G H Respondent filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal which held that the order cancelling the Caste Certificate could not have been taken by the Disciplinary Authority as the event of cancellation had taken place subsequent to initiation of disciplinary proceedings. High Court dismissed the Writ Petition against the order of appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.4.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellants herein, assailing the order of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench dated 22.4.1999 in the dismissed. B Questioning the said order of the Disciplinary Authority as also that of the Appellate Authority, an Original Application was filed by the respondent before the central administrative tribunal . By reason of a judgment and order dated 22.4.1999 the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad
Date of decision : 14-12-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5868/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
362UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs CARPENTER WORKERS UNION AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 904
Judge Name: AR. LAKSHMANAN,TARUN CHATTERJEE
course of hearing of the petition it was brought to the notice of the Court that order of the central administrative tribunal dated 6.8.J 999 upgrading the pay scale of carpenters of East Zone, to Rs.1200-1800 notionally w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and granting them the revised pay scale of Rs.4000-6000
Date of decision : 30-11-2006 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/7000/2004 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
363ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF ORISSA AND ANR. Vs R. RAMAMURTHY AND ANR. – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 776
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
appellants questioning correctness C of the decision rendered by the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench (in short the ‘CAT’) in 0.A.No. 1345 of 200 l. The basic issue which arose for consideration in the writ petition was “what is the mode of calculating of restoration of pension in
Date of decision : 29-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5269/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
364K.S. KRISHNASWAMY ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 330
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
revised to Rs. 12000-16500. The respondent claimed the scale of Rs. 14300-18300. His claim was rejected by the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal’s order was, however, upset by the High Court by the impugned order. H K.S. KRISHNASWAMY ETC. v. U.O .I. [H.K. SEMA, J.] Civil Appeal
Date of decision : 23-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3174/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
365  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs HASMUKHBHAI HIRABHAI RANA – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 348
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants-Union of India and its functionaries. The orders passed by the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad Bench (in short the ‘CAT’) in
Date of decision : 23-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5168/2006 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
366  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs L.P. TIWARI – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 271
Judge Name: AR. LAKSHMANAN,ALTAMAS KABIR
. Tiwari filed O.A.No. 118/2004 before the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) claiming that he ought to have been assessed as “outstanding” and should have been assigned seniority in the Indian Forest Service Cadre over respondent Nos. 4 to 8
Date of decision : 22-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5155/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
367UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs KUNISETTY SATYANARAYANA – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 257
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
Tribe community-Collector ordering cancellation D of the caste certificate and disciplinary action against him-Appeal to State Government-Dismissed by State Government-Issuance of charge Mem~ Incumbent filing petition before central administrative tribunal -Tribunal directing him to file reply to. Consequently, the Department issued a Charge Memo C to the respondent framing certain charges against him. Instead of replying to the aforesaid Charge Memo, the respondent filed an OA before the central administrative tribunal , which was disposed of with the direction to the applicant to submit his reply
Date of decision : 22-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5145/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
368CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHOPAL AND ORS. Vs M/S. LEENA JAIN AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 169
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
O.A. No.89 of 1996 passed by the Central . Administrative Tribunal , Jabalpur Bench, at Jabalpur (in short the ‘CAT’). The respondents moved the CAT under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985 (in short the ‘Act’) seeking regularization of their services. G Stand of the
Date of decision : 20-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5074/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
369GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs GEORGE PHILIP – [2006] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 108
Judge Name: G.P. MATHUR,DALVEER BHANDARI
after consultation with Union Public Service Commission, imposed a penalty of removal from service with immediate effect upon the respondent by order dated 18.12.1990. C 4. The respondent filed 0.A. No.56 of 1992 before central administrative tribunal , Emakulam Bench (for short ‘Tribunal
Date of decision : 16-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4998/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
370UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs S.K. SAIGAL AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1165
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
22.8.2003 and 27.2.2004 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order dated 30.10.2002 passed by the central administrative tribunal (CAT) allowing the petition of the respondents. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows: B c The respondents were working as Junior Hydro
Date of decision : 15-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2600/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
371DISTRICT REHABILITATION OFFICER AND ORS. Vs JAY KISHORE MAITY AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 1011
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
Rehabilitation centres set up in the State-Workers C employed in the Centres with pay scales of State Government employees­ Petitions before central administrative tribunal by workers for directions to hold that they are Central Government employees-Tribunal and High Court holding that the Centres with pay scales of State Government employees. The respondents-workers filed petitions before central administrative tribunal contending that they are Central Government employees and hence the terms and conditions of services of Central Government employees should be made applicable to
Date of decision : 10-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7999/2002 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
372SHASHIKANT Vs CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 474
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
against them. E Appellant, however, in the meanwhile, was transferred by an order dated 20.05.2005. He approached the central administrative tribunal contending that the said order of transfer was mala fide and being an outcome of his complaint and statements made in the inquiry conducted by the herein. The nature of relief prayed for in the writ petition also is beyond the domain of a writ court save and except, as indicated hereinbefore, an exceptional case C is made out. Appellant, inter a/ia, questioned his order of transfer. He moved the central administrative tribunal . His
Date of decision : 07-11-2006 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1127/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
373MATHURA PRASAD Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 264
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , questionin.g the said order of the disciplinary authority as also the Appellate Authority. By a judgment and order dated 13,2.2001, the Tribunal allowed the said application and directed reinstatement of Appellant with H
Date of decision : 01-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4634/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
374SHEKHAR GHOSH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2006] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 274
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,MARKANDEY KATJU
Repairing Factory, Kota. Yet again, on 22.10. I 996, another Office Order was issued. Appellant filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal . The operation of the order was stayed by an interim order dated G 1.11.1996. However, by an order dated 17 .11.1996, the
Date of decision : 01-11-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4635/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
375UNION OF INDIA Vs B. VALLUVAN AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 755
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
directed to be cancelled. B Several candidates purported to be aggrieved therewith, filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), contending that as the panel was drawn for future vacancies, they were entitled to be appointed against the vacancies occurring dated 7.12.1999. Several candidates purported to be aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , inter alia, contending that as the panel was drawn for future vacancies, they were entitled to be B appointed against the
Date of decision : 19-10-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4554/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
376UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs JUMMASHA DIWAN – [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 541
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
respondent-workman was employed under a project. On the project coming to an end, he was retrenched and was given retrenchment compensation in terms of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He filed application before central administrative tribunal questioning the retrenchment on the ‘, .. U.0.1. v. JUMMASHA DIWAN [SINHA, J.] 543 Act, I 94 7 (for short “the Act”). A He filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal (Tribunal) questioning the purported retrenchment on the ground that he having put in 1060 days of continuous service should have been
Date of decision : 19-10-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4552/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
377KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. Vs SAJAL KUMAR ROY AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 607
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
to have been committed E in the typing test. An original application was filed in the central administrative tribunal for a direction to the appellants to relax the upper age bar. The Tribunal directed for appointment of the respondents after relaxing the age limit The High Court, in writ of the school were moved for cancellation of the recruitment of the LDCs. C An Original Application was filed by Respondents before the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench, praying for a direction upon Appellants to relax the age of the candidates. By an order dated 15.3.2001, the
Date of decision : 19-10-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4569/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
378  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA Vs UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 522
Judge Name: ASHOK BHAN,MARKANDEY KATJU
. Union of India & Anr., This came up for hearing before three Judges of this Court. This Court disposed of the appeal on 12.9.1990 by passing the following order:- B c D E F G H “Special Leave granted. The short point raised in this appeal is as to whether the central administrative tribunal was
Date of decision : 19-10-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5483/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
379UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs S.D. BANDHOPADHYAY AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 587
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
had been considered by the Tribunal. Evidently, the Respondents could not have been given the entire benefit of the OM of 1984. It was in that situation and in particular in absence of a clear policy decision adopted by the Union oflndia a direction was issued by the central administrative tribunal that Ordnance Factories located in the State of West Bengal before the High Court of Calcutta which was disposed of by an order dated 8th October, 1985 directing B the Department to implement OM dated I 3.3.1984. The matter came up for consideration before the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur
Date of decision : 19-10-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2643/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
380INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ANR. Vs SAN TOSH – [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 255
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
ground that her deceased husband was not holding permanent status in service. She filed application seeking the reliefs, and F the same was allowed by central administrative tribunal holding that though her deceased husband was not holding permanent status in service, yet she was entitled to the present appellants questioning correctness of the order passed IN DIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICUL TURALRESEARCHv SANTOSH [PASA YAT,J] 257 by the central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur Bench (in short ‘CAT’). A The controversy lies within a very narrow compass. Respondent filed O.A.No.291 of2003
Date of decision : 16-10-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4499/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
381UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs MADRAS TELEPHONE SC & ST SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION – [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 694
Judge Name: B.P. SINGH,S.B. SINHA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
WELFAREASSON. [B.P. SINGH,J.) 695 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION I.A. No. 16. IN Civil Appeal No. 4339of1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.1986 of the central administrative tribunal Madras in T.A. No. 909/1986 and R.A. No. 44/1987. A B L. Nageshwar Rao, P.P. Khurana, Dayan protects the seniority and consequent promotion of persons who had judgments in their favour from th~ central administrative tribunal duly confirmed by this Court which have thus attained finality. Their seniority and promotion, therefore, cannot F be disturbed in any manner whatsoever. The
Date of decision : 28-09-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4339/1995 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
382UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs TARSEM LAL AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 456
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
application before central administrative tribunal claiming that he was entitled to pay and allowance from the date on which prc..forma promotion was given to him and not from the date of actual promotion. Appellant-Government, relying on Railway Board Circular dated 15/17 September, 1964 and filed by the present appellants and affirming the order of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (in short the ‘CAT’). Background facts in a nutshell are as follows : Respondent filed the Original Application claiming that he was entitled to pay and allowance from the
Date of decision : 21-09-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4222/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
383ARUN KUMAR NAYAK Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 404
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
. • ….. ‘ . . . App.ellant challe!lged selecti.on of respondent No.4 before central administrative tribunal (CAT). Tribunal quashed entire selectiOn process and directed respondent department to conduct selection process afresh C and to consider aH applications received from both Employment Exchange 6.8.1999 passed by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) in O.A.No.606 of 1998 was set aside. We have heard the parties at length. The present controversy relates to the appointment of Extra Departmental Sub Post Master ( in short EDSPM) at Ratnagiri, now redesignated as
Date of decision : 20-09-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2262/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
384UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs BRAHMA DUTI TRIPATHI – [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 359
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,D.K. JAIN
beyond 10.12.1979 which was challenged by respondent. central administrative tribunal set aside Order dated 30.11.1979 and directed that respondent be accorded benefit by treating the age of superannuation at 45 years with all other consequential benefits, which was also. affirmed by Division central administrative tribunal , whereby the order of 30th November, B 1979 declining further extension of service of the respondent beyond 10th December, 1979 was set aside. The Tribunal further directed that the respondent be accorded the benefit by treating the age of superannuation at 45 years
Date of decision : 18-09-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5750/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
385SANJAY KUMAR MANJUL Vs THE CHAIRMAN, UPSC AND ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 72
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
in G the opinion of the Union Public Service Com mission he did not fulfil the essential qualification. He filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal , which dismissed the same. However, his writ petition was allowed by the High Court. H The appellant, who was Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, marked as O.A. No. 1899 of 2004, which was dismissed by an order dated 15.07.2005. Dr. S. Rajavelu also filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal , Madras, which was marked as O.A. No.720 of 2004. By an order dated 28.04.2005, the
Date of decision : 13-09-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4098/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
386UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs K.G.SONI – [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 560
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
/estation form-later married another woman during subsistence of his first marriage-Disciplinary authority imposed penalty of removal from service-Appellate authority converted the punishment into one of compulsory retirement– central administrative tribunal declined D to interfere–High Court in punishment of removal from service. The appellate authority converted the punishment of removal into one of r.ompulsory retirement. The central administrative tribunal declined to interfere. The respondent filed a writ petition before the H 5~ U.O .I. v. K.G. SONI 561 High Court, which remitted
Date of decision : 17-08-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3528/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
387UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs MANIK LAL BANERJEE – [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 66
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,DALVEER BHANDARI
. A relying on or on the basis of a decision of the central administrative tribunal in the case of Pritam Singh. However, in that case, indisputably, the question as regards non-applicability of the 1972 Act and consequent applicability of the Railway Services Pension Rules, 1993 had not arisen of the central administrative tribunal on l.10.2004, referred to. 2.2. It is well-settled that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. The decision in Pritam Singh case having indisputably not taken into consideration, the exclusionary
Date of decision : 26-07-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3166/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
388UNION OF INDIA Vs ANUP KR. ROY – [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 693
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,ALTAMAS KABIR
) Act, 1990. D Respondent-employee took voluntary retirement before Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 came into effect. There were demands for higher pay scales considering which, a Memorandum was issued. Respondent filed application before central administrative tribunal , Guwahati were intended to be given to those who were working in Prasar Bharati or were currently in service of Prasar Bharati (Broadcasting Corporation of India). G Therefore, the respondent was not entitled for upgradation of scales of pay. (697-A) 2. The Guwahati Bench of central administrative tribunal (CA
Date of decision : 19-07-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2823/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
389UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs M. MATHIVANAN – [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 30
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER
. Santha Kumar and V.N. Raghupathy for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.K. THAKKER, J. This appeal is directed against an order dated B April 3, 2002 passed by the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench in O.A. No. 1094 of 2001 and confirmed by the High be considered only from 2007. His E appeal against the said order also came to be dismissed by the Superintendent of Post Offices on October 18, 2000. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the respondent approached the central administrative tribunal , Madras by filing Original Application. The
Date of decision : 09-06-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5739/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
390SATYA NARAIN SHUKLA Vs UNION OF lNDIA & ORS. – [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 275
Judge Name: B.N. SRIKRISHNA,LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA
before the central administrative tribunal . This was dismissed on the ground that (i) the Central Staffing Scheme, formulated by Government oflndia resolution dated 17.10.1957, was constitutional and valid (ii) post of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Government of India was not a same judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court and are in the nature of C cross appeals. Hence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. D E F These appeals arise out of an order of the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow. (hereinafter referred to as
Date of decision : 11-05-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2475/2006 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
391S.S. RANA Vs REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND ANR. – [2006] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 311
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,P.P. NAOLEKAR
noticed by reason of an /ppropriate notification A issued by the Central Government that CSIR was amenable to the jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal in terms of Section 14(2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. It was on the aforementioned premises this Court opined that
Date of decision : 25-04-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6052/2004 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
392M.V. BIJLANI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2006] 3 S.C.R. 896
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,P.P. NAOLEKAR
into. Furthermore, it has not been shown that ACE-8 Register was required to be maintained in an appropriate form or in a particular manner i.e. in bound form or in loose sheets. [903-D, E) 2. The central administrative tribunal as also the High Court failed G to take into consideration that the central administrative tribunal which was marked as 0.A. No.200of1992 questioning the correctness of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The said original application was dismissed by the C Tribunal by an order dated 24.06.1999. The
Date of decision : 05-04-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8267/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
393COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NEW DELHI Vs NARENDER SINGH – [2006] 3 S.C.R. 872
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,P.P. NAOLEKAR
criminal case arising therefrom he was discharged as apart from confession of accused, there was no other materials on record. However, in disciplinary proceedings, he was dismissed from service. central administrative tribunal allowed his original petition against this holding that his confession was initiated against him in relation to the same A incident. He filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) for stay of the said proceeding till disposal of the criminal case. By an order dated 23 .07 .1996, the said original
Date of decision : 05-04-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7488/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
394A. SUDHAKAR Vs POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD AND ANR – [2006] 3 S.C.R. 373
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,P.P. NAOLEKAR
Officer found C the employee guilty of the offence-Director of Postal Services imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement-Petition before central administrative tribunal by the employee contending that the Director had no jurisdiction to impose punishment; and that the quantum of punishment is respondent-Post Master General was dismissed. The appellant filed an Original Application before central administrative tribunal G which was allowed. The High Court in Writ Petition preferred by the respondents, reversed the judgment of the Tribunal. In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended
Date of decision : 24-03-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6573/2004 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
395GURPREET SINGH BHULLAR AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2006] 2 S.C.R. 1110
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,AR. LAKSHMANAN
condition that his name has been included in the list provisionally subject to his clearance in criminal case. He filed 0.A. in central administrative tribunal (CAT) challenging the notification. CAT allowed the O.A. with a direction that respondent no.5 be given G benefit of being placed in select/2000 in the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, challenging the Notification dated C 9.4.2002 seeking inter alia for i.ssuance of direction to the respondent to consider the claim and to issue notification of appointment of the respondent to IPS on the basis of his name being in the
Date of decision : 08-03-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1586/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
396ANJAN KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2006] 2 S.C.R. 209
Judge Name: H.K. SEMA,AR. LAKSHMANAN
as a Scheduled Tribe F ‘ candidate but was denied a final posting order. The appellant filed an ___). Original Application before central administrative tribunal seeking direction to respondent-Union of .India to allow the appellant to join training. The Union of India contended before the belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and his sub-caste is Oraon. H Having failed to receive any positive response from the respondents, he … f ANJAN KUMAR v. U.O.L [H.K. SEMA, J.] 213 1 filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , A Principal Bench, New Delhi
Date of decision : 14-02-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6445/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
397SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER TELEGRAPH, BIJNOR Vs THE PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR AND ANR. – [2006] 2 S.C.R. 135
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,R.V. RAVEENDRAN
application thereaginst before central administrative tribunal -Disposal c thereof as not maintainable-Dismissal of writ application by High Court being highly belated-On appeal, held: Jn the facts of the case writ application was not belated-Matter remitted to High Court for adjudication on merit, holding that it was highly belated. Hence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High Court for decision on merits, the Court F _J, HELD: A perusal of the factual scenario that Original application was filed before central administrative tribunal against the
Date of decision : 08-02-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3347/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : remitted the matter to the High Court
398THE CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD AND ANR. Vs T. VITTAL RAO AND ORS. – [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1097
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
, they became disentitled to draw overtime allowance. However, the said Circular was later E withdrawn by the Railway Board. Respondents claimed for the arrears for the intervening period, which was rejected b_y the authorities. They filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal . The Petition No. 1625 of 2004 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the appellant herein questioning the correctness of the judgment and order dated 3.10.2003 passed by the central administrative tribunal in 0.A. No. 13/2003 was dismissed. B The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute
Date of decision : 02-02-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/939/2006 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
399UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs GIRISHJAYANTILAL VAGHELA AND ORS – [2006] 1 S.C.R. 1006
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,G.P. MATHUR
in Handicap Centres filed an Original Application before central administrative tribunal for claiming regularisation of their services and for declaring them as railway servants and further for payment of regular pay scales. The claim B of the appellants was repelled by the Tribunal and also by
Date of decision : 02-02-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/933/2006 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
400UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs KALI DASS BA TISH AND ANR. – [2006] 1 S.C.R. 261
Judge Name: Y.K. SABHARWAL,B.N. SRIKRISHNA,R.V. RAVEENDRAN
-+ t I f r ) )’, UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. KALI DASS BA TISH AND ANR. JANUARY 5, 2006 [Y.K. SABHARWAL, CJ., B.N. SRIKRISHNA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 226 & 32 3A- central administrative tribunal -Appointment of judicial member-Candidates Respondent were amongst the candidates recommended for appointment as Judicial Members of the central administrative tribunal by a Selection Committee chaired by a nominee of the Chief Justice of India- a sitting Supreme Court Judge. However, they were not appointed considering their antecedents as
Date of decision : 05-01-2006 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6663/2004 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
401DIRECTOR GENERAL DOORDARSHAN MANDI HOUSE, NEW DELHI AND ORS. Vs MANAS DEY AND ORS. – [2005] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 298
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,R.V. RAVEENDRAN
holding that the respondent were entitled to the benefit under the scheme called Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularisation) Scheme, 1993 of Government of India. Judgment and order dated 7th September, 2001 passed by the Calcutta Bench D of central administrative tribunal (in
Date of decision : 17-11-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6857/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
402  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs BRAJ NANDAN SINGH – [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 356
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,AR. LAKSHMANAN
‘). The. view expressed by the central administrative tribunal about the respondent’s entitlement to suspension was upheld. H The undisputed factual background is as follows:- -, -~· U.0.1 v. BRAJ NANDAN SINGH [PASAYAT, J.] 359 The respondent was serving as a temporary Sorter on being the central administrative tribunal (in short the ‘Tribunal’). The Tribunal by its order dated 14.3.2001 held that the forfeiture of past service was not sustainable in law. It was held that by operation of Rule 26 the benefit available to a retired government servant cannot be denied on the
Date of decision : 19-10-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4406/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
403U.O.I. THROUGH GOVT. OF PONDICHERRY AND ANR. Vs V. RAMAKRISHNAN AND ORS. – [2005] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 291
Judge Name: S.B. SINHA,R.V. RAVEENDRAN
. A 1.4. The appellant was not 1:iven an opportunity of hearing in terms of Rule 12 of the central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. But, it does not appear from the judgment of the High Court that the appellant had taken any Service Commission (UPSC) with effect from 1.7.2004. He was repatriated to his parent department on 14.2.2005 and relieved off from his duties on the same day. Questioning the same, an original application was filed before the central administrative tribunal on 25.2.2005 praying interlia
Date of decision : 07-10-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6332/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
404  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
RAJENDER SINGH Vs LT. GOVERNOR, ANDAMAN & NICOBAR ISLANDS AND ORS. – [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1042
Judge Name: RUMA PAL,AR. LAKSHMANAN
passed in W.P.C.T. No. 214 of2003 by the High Coult of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair by which the High Court allowed the writ petition by dismissing the petition of the appellant herein before the central administrative tribunal in which the appellant herein succeeded and judgment and
Date of decision : 04-10-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6101/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
405STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. Vs AMAR NATH GOYAL AND ORS. – [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 549
Judge Name: Y.K. SABHARWAL,B.N. SRIKRISHNA
Government rejected his claim on the ground that he had retired prior to 1.4.1995. The employee then moved the central administrative tribunal (“CAT”) (Chandigarh Bench) by his Original Applications. The CAT directed that the benefit of O.M. dated 14.7.1995 be extended to the employee concerned, on
Date of decision : 11-08-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/129/2003 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : APPEALA AND TRANSFER CASES DISMISSED
406UMESH KORGA BHANDARI Vs MAHANAGAR TELEPHONE NIGAM LTD. AND ANR. – [2005] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 443
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,H.K. SEMA
High Court held that reference under the Act was not maintainable as the appellants were holding civil post and the appropriate forum was central administrative tribunal . In appeal to this Court, appellant-employees contended that since a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court, had held that adjudicate E their grievance was the central administrative tribunal (in short ‘Administrative Tribunal) constituted under the Administrative Tribunal’s Act, 1985 (in short the ‘Act’) and not the CGIT. Questioning the correctness of the judgment of the High Court the present appeals have been
Date of decision : 08-08-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6462/2003 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench | Direction Issue : REFERRED TO THREE-JUDGE BENCH
407UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs NARENDER SINGH – [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 899
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,H.K. SEMA
preferred by him was also rejected by the appellate authority. Challenging these orders, the respondent-employee filed Original Application before the central administrative tribunal . The Order was quashed by the Tribunal directing F the employer to reinstate the respondent-employee forthwith Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short the ‘Tribunal’). By order dated 21.11.2000, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of dismissal dated 7 .8.1997 passed by the disciplinary authority as also H the order dated 20.11.1997 passed
Date of decision : 29-07-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1813/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
408UNION OF INDIA Vs GAGAN KUMAR – [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 825
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,H.K. SEMA
central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short ‘the E Tribunal’), though it did not specifically refer to it. Factual background needs to be stated in brief: Respondent filed an original application before the Tribunal claiming that he was engaged as a casual labourer for
Date of decision : 27-07-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1026/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
409UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs KAMLA DEVI – [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 782
Judge Name: RUMA PAL,AR. LAKSHMANAN
central administrative tribunal . The A respondent’s husband filed an independent application before the central administrative tribunal . The CAT directed the Union of India to grant the ·benefits of the entire period of service prior to the applicants having been declared as Government Servants for
Date of decision : 22-07-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4502/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
410  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SECRETARY, O.N.G.C. LTD. AND ANR. Vs V.U. WARRIER – [2005] 3 S.C.R. 696
Judge Name: RUMA PAL,C.K. THAKKER
challenged that order unsuccessfully before the central administrative tribunal . He, therefore, approached this Court. His contention was .that an amount of gratuity could not have been withheld. Negativing the H contention, the Court held that the power to withhold gratuity was conferred I
Date of decision : 20-04-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2766/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
411OM PRAKASH SHRIVASTAV Vs STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. – [2005] 3 S.C.R. 679
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
a E Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur affirming the order passed by central administrative tribunal (in short ‘CAT’) holding that the appellant’s claim of seniority vis-a-vis that of one Ram Rao Bhosley was untenable. Factual position is undisputed and relates to
Date of decision : 19-04-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2698/2005 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
412SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. AND ANR. Vs M. SENTHIL KUMAR – [2005] 2 S.C.R. 436
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
Tribunal, High Court erred in invalidating the same. Applications were invited for the post of Police Constable, in which 10% of posts were for reserved category. Applicant-Respondent applied D but was not selected. He filed Original application before the central administrative tribunal , and for legal heirs of those persons who had been invalidated on medical grounds. The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appli<:ant’) filed an Original Application before the central administrative tribunal (in short the ‘Tribunal’). The respondent­ applicant was not found successful as he
Date of decision : 28-02-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1453/2005 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
413S. PUSHPA AND ORS. Vs SIVACHANMUGAVELU AND ORS. – [2005] 1 S.C.R. 1158
Judge Name: R.C. LAHOTI,K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,G.P. MATHUR
employment-Presidential order for reservation of SC/ST-Effect of-Discussed. Respondents approached the central administrative tribunal challenging the selection of migrant Scheduled Casie (SC) candidates for the post of teachers as against quota reserved for SC persons in the Union Territory of taken by the Tribunal cannot E be sustained. 11176-C-D) F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6·7 of 1998. From the Judgment and Ordi:r dated 5.11.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in O.A.Nos. 199 and 214 of 1996. WITH C.A. Nos. 4.5 of 1998. V. Balachandran
Date of decision : 11-02-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
414M. SELVANATHAN AND ANR. ETC. Vs THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC. – [2005] 2 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: R.C. LAHOTI,K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,G.P. MATHUR
,, M. SELV ANA THAN AND ANR. ETC. v. THE REGISTRAR, central administrative tribunal , CHENNAI AND ORS. ETC. FEBRUARY 11, 2005 [R.C. LAHOTI, CJ., K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Service law : A B Resen,ation–Claimed by migrant Scheduled Caste candidates-Held, C for delivered by H 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) 2 S.C.R. A G.P. MATHUR, J. The issue involved in these appeals is similar to that of Civil Appeal Nos. 6-7 of 1998 and Civil Appeal Nos. 4-5 of l 998. In these cases, the central administrative tribunal had allowed the O.A. flied by some of
Date of decision : 11-02-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1381/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
415SURENDER KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2005] 1 S.C.R. 468
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
up of the pay as provided F under Rule 1316 of the Railway Establishment Code were not Culfilled. Aggrieved, some of the Loco Supervisors, other than the appellants, filed petitions before the central administrative tribunal against the order of withdrawal of the Circular. CAT upheld their the sources were different and that made the principle of stepping up of pay inapplicable. Hence, the claim of the appellants is squarely covered by the decision in that case necessarily justifying the rejection of their claim by the central administrative tribunal and the High Court. [471-G-H
Date of decision : 13-01-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1022/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
416KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGTHAN AND ANR. Vs S.C. SHARMA – [2005] 1 S.C.R. 374
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
filing a petition before the central administrative tribunal (CAT). CAT quashed the order holding that since basic requirements of Rule 19(ii) of the Rules were not complied with, authorities were not justified in imposing penalty on the respondent. However, liberty G was granted to the appellant CWP No.2965-CAT of 2003. Appellants had questioned correctness of the order dated 27 .11.2002 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench (in short ‘CAT’) in OA No.124/ HK/2001. p Background facts in a nutshell which are essential are as under: Respondent joined service
Date of decision : 11-01-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/271/2005 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
417SUNIL KUMAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2005] 1 S.C.R. 25
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
the Respondents. _The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARJJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. B Appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, affirming order of the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench (in short the
Date of decision : 04-01-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
418  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SMT. DRAUPADI BEHARA AND ANR. – [2005] 1 S.C.R. 18
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,S.H. KAPADIA
central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench (in short ‘the CAT’ ). It was pleaded that the authorities were not justilied in rejecting the application for compassionate appointment merely on the basis that the report indicated about joint living of the widow and the five sons. The present
Date of decision : 03-01-2005 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7/2005 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
419SUMAN VERMA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 647
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER
, respondent No. 6 filed an application before the central administrative tribunal challenging the appointment of the appellant on the ground that she had obtained more marks in the Matriculation Examination than the appellant. The appellant also contended that she had become the owner of an (1996) SC 2823, relied on. H 2. The central administrative tribunal (CAT) as well as the High SUMAN VERMA v. U.O.l. [THAKKER, J.] 649 Court were right in holding that though respondent No. 6 was eligible having possessed agricultural land, her case was ignored by the authorities and hence
Date of decision : 24-09-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6275/2004 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
420GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Vs G. LIMBADRI RAO AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 618
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,AR. LAKSHMANAN
have not crossed 54 years of age as on 1.1.2002 were eligible. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion, the first respondent herein (G.Limbadri Rao), a Non-SCS officer of Andhra Pradesh, had filed O.A.No.1711 of2001 against the Union of India before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad. The
Date of decision : 22-09-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6234/2004 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
421PRITAM SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 608
Judge Name: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,AR. LAKSHMANAN
. 609 and the statement of the appellant, who admitted his guilt, respondent A No. 3 passed an order of compulsory retirement of the appellant as he had violated Rules 31 (i), (ii) and (iii) of the Railways Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966. The central administrative tribunal and the High Court 24.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 10285/CAT/2003 wherein the High Court as dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-herein and confirmed the orders of the central administrative tribunal imposing the punishment of compulsory
Date of decision : 22-09-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6233/2004 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
422KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 578
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER
, respondent No. 5 in the present appeal was 578 – KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN v. D.P. PANDEY [PASAYAT, J.] 579 transferred to Jabalpur in place of respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 filed Original Application before the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur (in short ‘Tribunal’). The
Date of decision : 20-09-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6207/2004 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
423  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.P. HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 520
Judge Name: R.C. LAHOTI,C.K. THAKKER
also central administrative tribunal (Jabalpur Bench). The Association was constituted to look after and protect the interests of its members. One of the prime duties of the Association, D E F G H 528 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A asserted the petitioners, is to
Date of decision : 17-09-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5327/2002 | Direction Issue : APPEALS/PETITIONS DISMISSED
424M. AMANULLAH KHAN Vs GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 797
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
fortuitous. The appellant, an officer in the Forest Department of the State Government, was appointed to the Indian Forest Service on 27.3.1992. D He filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal contending that from 6.8.1980 onwards he officiated on cadre E posts and] Supp. 3 SCC 575 and uR.R.S. Chauhan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., [1995] Supp. 3 SCC 109, relied on. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7252 of F G H 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 7 .3 .1996 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench in O.A. No
Date of decision : 25-08-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7252/1999 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
425UNION OF INDIA Vs SANJAY KUMAR JAIN – [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 463
Judge Name: ARIJIT PASAYAT,C.K. THAKKER
the decision rendered by central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short ‘CAT’). Factual position in a nutshell is as follows: F G The respondent while working in Group-C post of the Railways applied for promotion to Group-B post. He qualified in the written test and
Date of decision : 11-08-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5178/2004 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
426UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs C. DINAKAR, l.P.S. AND ORS. – [2004] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 470
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,S.B. SINHA,AR. LAKSHMANAN
Director, CBI. Respondent No.1 though was the senior-most officer, was not included in the F panel Respondent No.6 was appointed to the post. Respondent No.1 chaUenged the appointment in central administrative tribunal alleging that the appointment was done ignoring his case and that the procedure of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No.5765 of200I whereby E the High Court has affinned the order dated 8.2.200 I passed by the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench in O.A. No.I020 of I999. The first respondent herein was a member of the Indian Police Service (IPS) of I 963
Date of decision : 20-04-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4303/2002 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
427MIR MOHAMMAD KHASIM Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2004] 3 S.C.R. 613
Judge Name: BRIJESH KUMAR,ARUN KUMAR
central administrative tribunal is set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the appellant for selection to the Indian Police Service for the year 1989 and in case he is selected F he shall be entitled to notional promotions and financial benefits only without affecting junior to the appellant in the seniority list were considered and selected. The appellant was not considered by the selection G committee with a remark that he was not yet confirmed. This fact was verified by the central administrative tribunal by perusing the record of the selection in question. As
Date of decision : 26-03-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/307/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
428SHRI BHAGWAN LAL ARYA Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, DELHI AND ORS. – [2004] 3 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: R.C. LAHOTI,AR. LAKSHMANAN
respondent was rejected. Fresh revision and mercy petitions filed by the appellant were also rejected. H I 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R. A The central administrative tribunal dismissed the appeal of the appellant. The Writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 02.06.1997 and 27 .06.1998 respectively. The appellant approached the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi which also dismissed the 0.A. No. 1195 of 1998. Th·ereupon the appellant filed the writ-petition in the High Court which was also dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellant
Date of decision : 16-03-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1625/2004 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
429  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SRI JANARDHAN DEBANATH AND ANR. – [2004] 2 S.C.R. 356
Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,ARIJIT PASAYAT
misbehaviour with a Director, a lady officer. Aggrieved, \ \, H 356 U.0.1. v. JANARDHAN DEBANATH 357 employees approached central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal did A not interfere with the transfer order. Employees challenged the decision before the High Court. High Court held that the
Date of decision : 13-02-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1010/2004 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
430UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs K.S. JOSEPH AND ORS. ETC. – [2004] 2 S.C.R. 196
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,S.B. SINHA,S.H. KAPADIA
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1499-1502 of 1999. F From the iudgment and Order dated 6.11.95 and 8.11.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench at Andhra Pradesh in 0. Appln. Nos. 81/93 and 1164/94 and R. Appln. Nos. 5/96 and 14 of 1996. WITH C.A should also be upgraded from semi-skilled workmen to the skille.d workmen and be given the pay scale meant for the skilled workmen. It appears that the appellants herein declined their request, whereafter the respondents filed Original Applications before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad
Date of decision : 05-02-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1499/1999 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
431R. VISHWANATHA PILLAI Vs STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. – [2004] 1 S.C.R. 360
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,ASHOK BHAN,AR. LAKSHMANAN
was dismissed by the Supreme L’ Court. In the meanwhile, appellant filed 0.A. before the central administrative tribunal seeking direction to the State Government restraining them to terminate his services as per the proceedings of the E Scrutiny Committee and without complying with the conditions laid down under Article 311 of the Constitution and the provisions of All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. central administrative tribunal allowed the petition. Hence the present appeal. Son of the appellant (appellant in the connected appeal No.90/2004) F took admission in
Date of decision : 07-01-2004 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/89/2004 | Direction Issue : CA 89/04 DISMISSED, CA 90/04 ALLOWED
432VITHAL Y. GALTONDE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 952
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,RUMA PAL
coming into force .of the new Rules. (955-D-F; 956-A-B; 957-C] .State of Goa v. Yvette Periera, [1998) 9 SCC 112, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2636 of 1999 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.95 in R.P.31.95/in O.A. No. E 407/94 of the central administrative tribunal Bombay
Date of decision : 16-12-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2636/1999 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
433CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. Vs SURINDER KUMAR AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 283
Judge Name: BRIJESH KUMAR,ARUN KUMAR
respondents sought the benefit of reservation but the same was denied to them. This led them to approach the central administrative tribunal at Chandigarh. The Tribunal vide its order dated 23.2.2000 allowed the OA filed by the respondents and directed the Chandigarh E Administration to give, Governmerit of India as H 288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2003]·SUPP:6·S.C.R. A suggested in letter dated 26th July, 1986. ‘However, they had not received any response in this· regard. The central administrative tribunal as well as the High Court relying on the clarification issued by the
Date of decision : 27-11-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4684/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
434PRAMOD K. PANKAJ Vs STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 916
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,S.B. SINHA
degree-holder for the said purpose shall be reckoned from the date of obtaining such degree. The central administrative tribunal before which the application was filed held that the diploma-holders B were entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on par with the
Date of decision : 20-11-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/62/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
435RAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 357
Judge Name: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
of work of contractor with the principal employer-Application before central administrative tribunal for regularization of service-Application rejected as not maintainable-Writ Petition rejected by High Court-On appeal, held: Where control is with the principal employer, mere fact of formal College and Hospital. Appellants who were trained electricians and skilled workmen were employed with the sub-station through different F contractors. They filed application before central administrative tribunal seeking direction to the Administration to regularize their services in the
Date of decision : 07-11-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3166/2002 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
436  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER AND ORS. Vs A. SANKARAIAH – [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 923
Judge Name: ASHOK BHAN,AR. LAKSHMANAN
petition before central administrative tribunal claiming revised pay scale w.e.f. · 19.8.1988 by taking into account his past service. The Tribunal allowed the petition of the respondent. The H 923 924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A review application filed by the appellant was the CPWD. [930-D-G) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4449 of 1997. D From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.1996 of the central administrative tribunal at Hyderabad in RA. No. 88/96 in O.A. No. E 929195. P.P. Malhotra; Ms. Rekha Pandy, V.K. Verma and D.S. Mahara for the
Date of decision : 17-10-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4449/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
437  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs V.N. BHAT – [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 857
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,S.B. SINHA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8375 of 1997. From · the Judgment and Order dated 15. 11. 96 of the central administrative tribunal Chandigarh Bench Circuit at Jammu in Original B Application No. 401-JK of 1996. WITH C.A. No. 8329 of 2003. C T.L.V. Iyer, Ms. Shashi Kiran was reverted to the post earlier held by him. It is under such circumstances, the respondent on 15th November, 1996, filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative D Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Challenging his withdrawal of one time bound promotion. The central administrative tribunal , by
Date of decision : 16-10-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8375/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
438UNION OF INDIA Vs TARIT RANJAN DAS – [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 339
Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,ARIJIT PASAYAT
representation seeking parity with the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 as given to Stenographer Grade G C in Central Secretariat by Office Memorandum dated 31.7.1990. The respondent filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal seeking parity of pay scale. The ground to C extend the benefit to the respondent. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1.1. The central administrative tribunal and the High D Court have completely lost sight of the fact that the Fifth Central Pay Commission in its report specifically considered the question of parity
Date of decision : 08-10-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8173/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
439THIRUMALA TIRUPATI DEVASTHANAMS AND ANR. Vs THALLAPPAKA ANANTHACHARYULU AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 538
Judge Name: S.N. VARIAVA,H.K. SEMA
but not a mere wrong decision 11 • Mr. Mishra also relied upon the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Upendra Singh reported in [1994] 3 SCC 357. In this case the central administrative tribunal had examined the correctness of charges framed D in a disciplinary proceedings. It was held that
Date of decision : 10-09-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/16727/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
440  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
V.K. MAJOTRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 483
Judge Name: R.C. LAHOTI,ASHOK BHAN
appointment of the Vice-Chairman of the central administrative tribunal . Under Section 6 (2) (a) a person who is or has been or who possesses the qualification to become a Judge of a High Court can be appointed as the Vice-Chairman of the central administrative tribunal . Under Section 6(2)(b) (bb) and (c branches of the G central administrative tribunal . He also challenged the constitutional validity of the explanation to Section 6 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Disposing of the writ petition, the High Court did not decide the inter se claims of the parties to the writ petition. Instead
Date of decision : 09-09-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4106/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
441UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Vs RAJESH KUMAR BASANDHI AND ANR. – [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 452
Judge Name: BRIJESH KUMAR,ARUN KUMAR
application of respondent I was rejected by the appellant on the ground that the age of the respondent I was beyond the maximum age G limit. Respondent I challenged the rejection before central administrative tribunal contending that the maximum age limit is 35 years in view of amendment made in time to time’ to interpret the meaning of the phrase ‘for the time being’ used in the main provision. [462-F-H, 463-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2731 of 1997. J) From the Judgment and Order dated 25.10.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh in O.A. No. 527-CH
Date of decision : 08-09-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2731/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
442JUSTICE P. VENUGOPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 286
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,ASHOK BHAN,S.B. SINHA
Judge is appointed as Vice-Chairman of the central administrative tribunal , the period during which such service is rendered, is to be tagged during which he held the office of a High Court Judge. D Pratibha Bonnerjea (supra) was decided by a two-Judge Bench of this Court. In that case interpretation of Rule 15-A of the central administrative tribunal (Salari.:s and Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Members) Rules, 1985 fell for consideration of this Court which is in the following terms : E “15-A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Rules 4 to 15
Date of decision : 01-09-2003 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/15450/2003 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
443OM PRAKASH SOOD Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1020
Judge Name: M.B. SHAH,AR. LAKSHMANAN
. 1021 unequivocally refused to take up the po~t of Key Board Operator. Hence A appellant gave his unequivocal refusal to hold the post and respondent was directed to reply to appellant’s representation. On not getting any reply from the respondent, appellant moved central administrative tribunal which vogue in respect of other supervisory posts; C · How far is the central administrative tribunal right in holding that the respondents are right in their contention that the appellant was promoted as Key Board Operator and his pay as Key Board Operator would be drawn and paid to him in due
Date of decision : 26-08-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9169/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
444A.I. RAILWAY PARCEL & GOODS PORTERS UNION Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 842
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,AR. LAKSHMANAN,G.P. MATHUR
in Writ Petition No.5595 of 1998. In the said case, the central administrative tribunal allowed the claim of the respondents therein by following the judgment of this Court in National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors and Bearers v. Union of India and C Ors .. reported in [1995] Supp 3 Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No.1760 of2000 dismissing the writ petition and affirming the order passed by the central administrative tribunal . For the sake of convenience, we will first deal with the facts in Writ Petition No. 433 of 1998 and the questions of law as they
Date of decision : 22-08-2003 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/433/1998 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
445UNION OF INDIA Vs KULDIP SINGH PERMER AND ORS. – [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 677
Judge Name: BRIJESH KUMAR,ARUN KUMAR
: Civil Appeal No. 2702of1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.3.1996 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh in O.A. No. 635/HP of 1989. WITH C.A.No. 6428 of2003. Kailash Vasdev, Hemant Sharma, Y.P. Mahajan, Mrs. Sushma Suri and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellant. S.K the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench. ‘foe original application was filed by respondent No. I before the tribunal challenging seniority list issued by the Department wherein his seniority had been fixed from the date of absorption in the Department. Respondent No. I was claiming
Date of decision : 18-08-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2702/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
446UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs RAJESH P.U. PUTHUVALNIKATHU AND ANR. – [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 883
Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,ARIJIT PASAYAT
already conducted and the list of selected candidates has been cancelled by the Competent Authority of CBI. It appears that, in the meantime, some of the unsuccessful candidates, who appeared for selection B in Hyderabad, filed an application (OA No. I 034 of 2000) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘CAT’), Principal Bench at New Delhi, challenging the selections making allegations of favouritism and nepotism on the part of officers in conducting Physical Efficiency Test. The CBI seems to have opposed the same refuting such allegations asserting that the impugned
Date of decision : 30-07-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5321/2003 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
447DWARKA PRASAD AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. – [2003] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 784
Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI
Judgment and Order dated 30. I 0.1996 of the central administrative tribunal at Mumbai in O.A. No. 456 of 1994. WITH C.A. No. 5333of1997. P.P. Rao, Janaranjan Das, G. Balaji and S. Mishtra for the Appellant in C.A. No. 5332/97. F G A.K. Ganguli, Jana Kalyan Das for the Appellant in C.A. No appellants question the B correctness of and assail the order dated 30.10.1996 of the Mumbai Bench of the central administrative tribunal . The appellants were appointed as Preventive Officers (Grade I) in Central Services Group ‘C’ (non-gazetted). The question before the tribunal was on the
Date of decision : 28-07-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5332/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
448PHOOL BADAN TIWARI AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2003] 3 S.C.R. 386
Judge Name: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,ARIJIT PASAYAT
order dated 13. I. 2000 passed by the High C Court in CWP No. 6654/99. The appellants in the first instance approached the central administrative tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3099/91 and 0.A. No. 1014/93. The Tribunal dismissed both the 0. As. Not satisfied with and aggrieved by the said orders
Date of decision : 03-04-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/272/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
449KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ORS. Vs RAM RATAN YADAV – [2003] 2 S.C.R. 361
Judge Name: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,ARIJIT PASAYAT
factual information in D the attestation form, his services were terminated by the Memorandum dated 7/8.4. I 999. He approached the central administrative tribunal by filing 0.A. No. 1150/99 challenging the said order of termination contendin’g that he had education in Hindi medium and he is not
Date of decision : 26-02-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3266/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
450MAAN SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2003] 2 S.C.R. 129
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,D.M. DHARMADHIKARI,G.P. MATHUR
had previously absented himself unauthorisably on 21 different E occasions. Appellant’s departmental appeal against the dismissal order before additional Deputy Commissioner of Police was rejected. Appellant filed original application before central administrative tribunal on the ground that the said order of dismissal to the Additional Commissioner of Police, New Delhi range but the same was rejected by an order made on 18.9.1992. Thereafter, the appellant filed an Original Application No. 99/93 on the file of the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal
Date of decision : 18-02-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2531/2001 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
451  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
P. LAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2003] 1 S.C.R. 846
Judge Name: S.S.M. QUADRI,S.N. VARIAVA
the central administrative tribunal against re-induction of Respondent No. 3 into service. The Appellant claims that by such re-induction his seniority in the cadre gets affected. The Government and Respondent No. 3 contested the application. Before the central administrative tribunal it was urged that the Appellant had no locus to challenge the action of the Government in permitting Respondent No. 3 to G withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. It was also urged that the central administrative tribunal had no jurisdiction. The central administrative tribunal negatived both
Date of decision : 05-02-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1050/2003 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
452  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PUBLIC SERVICES TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANR – [2003] 1 S.C.R. 666
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,ASHOK BHAN
transfer of a public servant. In 1985 the Administrative Tribunals Act (Act No. 13 of 1985) was enacted by the Parliament under Article 323-A of the Constitution providing a central administrative tribunal with benches for adjudicating disputes in F respect of recruitment and conditions of service
Date of decision : 29-01-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3946/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
453  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
U.O.I Vs A.P. BAJPAI AND ORS. – [2003] 1 S.C.R. 429
Judge Name: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,H.K. SEMA
termination simpliciter-Challenge to-Set aside by central administrative tribunal -On appeal, Held: since factors assessing suitability of the incumbent to continue in service or otherwise were stated in the counter affidavit as grounds for termination, finding of Tribunal that termination order termination was rejected by the competent authority. central administrative tribunal set aside the E termination order. Hence the present appeal. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the servi~es of Respondent No. I were terminated by passing an order of termination simpliciter under the
Date of decision : 20-01-2003 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/16838/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
454P.U. JOSHI AND ORS. Vs THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, AHMEDABAD AND ORS. – [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 573
Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
of equality of opportunity and equal protection, was rejected by the Tribunal, both in the order dated 10.8.1994 and subsequently in the order 12.10.1994. It may be incidentally D pointed out at this stage that similar claims were projected by persons similarly place~ before the Central Administrative Tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, in O.A. No. 561/HP/89 and 0.A. No. 1017/HP/91 and the said Tribunal also by its decision dated 9.9.1993 rejected a similar challenge. Yet another claim projected before the Central · Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, in E Registration 0.A. No. 1502/88 and this Bench of the central administrative tribunal also rejected the claim of the applicants therein. While that be the position, similar claims projected by some of the aggrieved persons before the central administrative tribunal , Bench at Cuttack in the State-ofOrissa, in O.A benefits flowing from such promotions setting out also a time limit within which such orders have to be implemented. It is against this judgment of the Cunack Bench of the central administrative tribunal that Civil Appeal No. 10983of1996 came to be filed, by the Union of India and the Department H
Date of decision : 19-12-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4679/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
455STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Vs MANAS KUMAR CHAKRABARTI AND ORS. – [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 72
Judge Name: DORAISWAMY RAJU,B.N. SRIKRISHNA
CHAKRABARTI [SRI KRISHNA, J.) 81 observations of the Karnataka High Court which in turn were based on the A facts admitted. The central administrative tribunal correctly appreciated the facts of Dinakar but the High Court fell into error in thinking that Dinakar had laid down any inexorable proposition
Date of decision : 13-12-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3335/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
456INDIAN RLY. CLASS II OFFICERS FEDN. AND ANR. Vs ANIL KUMAR SANG HI AND ORS. – [2002] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 529
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
; 537-Af CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 92of1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 4.8.1995 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 574of1993. B Salman Khurshid, lmtiaz Ahmad, Naghma lmtiaz and V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellants. Ashok K. Mahajan, Shashi Kiran, Anil Katiyar, BhMi Verma, Kiran Kapoor and D.S. Mehra for the Respondents. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. Aggrieved by the order of the central administrative tribunal (C.A.T.) Principal Bench, passed on 4.8.1995 in 0.A. No
Date of decision : 23-09-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/92/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
457SATISH RAWAT Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 671
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
test as well as in the field test and interview, was not selected. He filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. By an order made on 6.6.2000 the Tribunal quashed the appointment of the appellant and the
Date of decision : 26-08-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/133/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
458SHER BAHADUR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 568
Judge Name: S.S.M. QUADRI,S.N. VARIAVA
(Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1986. He unsuccessfully challenged the order of dismissal before the central administrative tribunal . High Court also dismissed the Writ Petition filed against the Tribunal’s order. G In appeal to this Court, it was contended that enquiry report was based H no central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Bench, Allahabad. The Tribunal dismissed the said application by order passed on August 22, 2000 which was impugned F in the afore-mentioned writ petition before the High Court of judicature at Allahabad. It is against the order of the dismissal of the
Date of decision : 16-08-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5055/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
459  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DURGADAS PURKYASTHA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 223
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
and Sessions E Judge in West Tripura, Agartala, as a Judicial Member in the central administrative tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. It was indicated in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner will be ·for a period of five years from the date of joining or till
Date of decision : 22-07-2002 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/552/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
460ANIS PARVEZ AND ORS. Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS. – [2002] 3 S.C.R. 843
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,RUMA PAL,B.P. SINGH
. Respondent Nos. 3 to 12, filed applications before central administrative tribunal seeking quashing of regularisation of the appellants and sought for F direction to respondent Nos. I and 2 to fill up the regular Group C post by promoting them to the post. Appellants were not made parties therein. The confirmed on their posts. Aggrieved by this regularisation, respondent Nos. 3 to 12 filed 0.A. No. E 1430/92 before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] and sought for a direction to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to fill up the
Date of decision : 07-05-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2935/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
461UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs INDU LAL AND ORS. – [2002] 3 S.C.R. 584
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
central administrative tribunal .claiming. parity in pay scale on par with presenting officers of Junior Administrative Gra~ ~ Their case was that the post of Presenting Officer was an Ex-cadre post E and appointment on such post was made from Junior Administrative Grade Officers and from Law Judgment and Order dated 1.1.97/2.1.97 of the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow in O.A. No. 53 of 1993. N.N. Goswami, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Anil Katiyar and Arvind Kumar E Sharma for the Appellants. M.N. Rao, Annam D.N. Rao and K.M.M. Khan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was
Date of decision : 29-04-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2668/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
462STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. Vs G. HALAPPA AND ORS. – [2002] 3 S.C.R. 500
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
– ! )i- • – – STATEv.G.HALAPPA 501 he has been appointed at a stage equal to the basic pay that he would have A drawn ifhe had been appointed to such post as regular candidate, with effect from the date of his appoilttment as a contract teacher. The contract employees moved the Central Administrative Tribunal to treat them as local candidates as under the rules local candidates have been conferred some additional pay benefits including pay protection. Tribunal relied on its earlier B Judgment in Parmeshwarappa ‘s case and decided the case in favour of contract employees by
Date of decision : 26-04-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/525/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
463DOCTORAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES OF S.V. UNIVERSITY, DR. K. KRISHNA REDDY AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2002] 3 S.C.R. 492
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
of the central administrative tribunal in Pratibha Mishra and Ors. v. CSIR, which was clarified by the Supreme Court in CSIR and Ors., v. Dr. Ajay Kr. Jain, [2000] 4 SCC 186. C Dismissing the Writ Petitions, the Court HELD : 1. The Scheme evolved by UGC or CSIR is only a supportive programme the CSIR system on account of which they cannot be considered for absorption in the CSIR and that the scheme was framed pursuant to an order made in C.A. No. 1680/1997. by this Court in G a matter arising from the order made by the central administrative tribunal in Pratibha Mishra v. in 0.A. No
Date of decision : 26-04-2002 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/67/1998 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
464B. RAMANJINI AND ORS. Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. – [2002] 3 S.C.R. 506
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,DORAISWAMY RAJU
qualify in the subsequent examination filed original application before central administrative tribunal for declaration that the subsequent DSC written tests in Anantpur District were arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 21 and sought direction to declare A appropriate results. B. C.A. Nos. 894 of 1999 and 3094-3ll0 of 2002. High Court while dealing with appointment of teachers in a writ petition, issued directions witi. regard to Scheme of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 viz. the tenure of office of the members, Chairman and Vice Chairman of central administrative tribunal , manner
Date of decision : 26-04-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6461/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
465UNION OF INDIA AND ANR . Vs DELHI HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION AND ORS. – [2002] 2 S.C.R. 450
Judge Name: B.N. KIRPAL,Y.K. SABHARWAL,K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
barred by Section 18 of the Act, it would be only logical that any matter r pending in the civil court should stand transferred to the Tribunal. This is ,r,—… ‘. what happened when the central administrative tribunal was established. ~ All cases pending in the High Courts stood transferred. Now Courts barred by Section 18 of the Act, it would be only logical that any matter pending in the civil court should stand transferred to the Tribunal. This is what happened when the C central administrative tribunal was established. All cases pending in the High Courts stood transferred. Now that
Date of decision : 14-03-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4679/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
466KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN AND ANR. Vs SUBHAS SHARMA – [2002] 2 S.C.R. 335
Judge Name: S.N. PHUKAN,P. VENKATARAMA REDDI
Central Government servants and others posted to work in the State of Jammu and Kashmir. A B c Section 14(/)(b)(iii)-Kendriya Vidyalaya-Service matters-Central D Administrative Tribunal-Jurisdiction, powers and authority of-Held: The central administrative tribunal has jurisdiction concerning appellant-Kendriya Vidyalaya, filed writ petitions before the High Court alleging some disputes regarding their service condition. The appellants filed applications for transfer of the writ petitions to the central administrative tribunal on the ground that under G the Administrative Tribunals Act
Date of decision : 07-03-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5448/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
467UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs O. CHAKRADHAR – [2002] 1 S.C.R. 1091
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,BRIJESH KUMAR
appointed. Subsequently, the Railway Administration passed an order terminating the services of entire selected E candidates on the ground that serious irregularities had been committed in conducting the examination. Respondent whose service was also terminated filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal . Tribunal set aside the termination order holding that general allegation of irregularities in the recruitment process was not enough to take a decision to cancel the whole F selection without issuing proper show cause notice to the individual candidates. Appellant’s appeal for the parties. The appellants, Union of India and others have impugned the judgment and order dated July 18, 2000 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, dismissing their writ petition assailing the order passed by the central administrative tribunal by which the Tribunal had set aside on 28.6.1996. After about three years of appointment, a communication dated 21.4.1999 was received by the respondent from the Railway administration relevant part of which has been quoted in the order F passed by the central administrative tribunal . It is re-produced below:- ”Now it has come
Date of decision : 19-02-2002 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1326/2002 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
468SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR Vs DHANI RAM AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 498
Judge Name: K.T. THOMAS,S.N. PHUKAN
A B c SURESH CHANDRA PODDAR v. DHANI RAM AND ORS. DECEMBER 6, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND S.N. PHUKAN, JJ.] Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/Colllempt of Cowts Act, 1971 : S.17/ss.12 and 13-‘ central administrative tribunal -Exercise of con­ temptjurisdiction-ln a seniority matter receipt of notice of contempt, we except the courts to show judicial grace and magnanimity in dealing with. the action for con­ tempt. The Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, has now convicted the Director of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi under Section 17
Date of decision : 06-12-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/535/2001 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
469PARMESHWAR PRASAD Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 506
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,DORAISWAMY RAJU
application before central administrative tribunal assailing his non-con· sideration as a lapse or omission on the part of State Scrutiny Committee in not holding the meetings annually. The Tribunal dismissed the applica­ tion holding that unlike the statutory obligation under I.A.S. (Appoint while others. had been, the appellant moved the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench at Patna; by filing O.A; No.213 of 1997. In the said application, interim orders of stay· appe~ to have been obtained also, which came to be ultimately vacated by the Tribunal on 18.9.1997 on being
Date of decision : 30-10-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/173/1999 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
470  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GOVERNMENT OF NCT, DELHI Vs ALL INDIA CENTRAL CIVIL ACCOUNTS, JAOS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 494
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,DORAISWAMY RAJU
divisions under Public Works Department on deputation from Ministry of Urban Development. H The order was challenged before central administrative tribunal 494 – …. GOVT. OF NCT v. ALL INDIA CENTRAL CIVIL ACCOUNTS 495 by Respondent No. I-Association on the ground that the order of back at the disposal of the the Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. This order was challenged by an application before the , central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. The case put forth before the Tribunal by
Date of decision : 03-10-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2971/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
471UNION OF INDIA Vs ASHUTOSH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. – [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 488
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,DORAISWAMY RAJU
] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1567 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.95 of the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad in 0.A. No. 1057 of 1994. A B c M.N. Goswami, Niranjana Singh, Anil Katiyar, Arvind Kumar Sharma, D for the Appellants .. Waziri. 1057 of 1994 before the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. ·1n the meanwhile, respondent No.· 1 was repatriated to his parent Engineering Department. The Tribunal quashed the result of the viva voce test in respect. of respondent No. 1 and
Date of decision : 03-10-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1567/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
472UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs M. LEPDON AO AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 455
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,DORAISWAMY RAJU
in lieu thereo,f­ Howeve1; any compensation that may have already been paid shall not be recovered-0.M. 12-11160-ACC-l dated 2-8-1960—Tribunal ‘s decision set aside. The respondents filed applications before the central administrative tribunal claiming that they were eligible for free, Ujjwal Banerjee and Ms. Anidita Gupta for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Coun was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Five applications were filed before the central administrative tribunal , Guwahati Bench [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] by Group ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees of
Date of decision : 01-10-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1309/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
473K.L. NANDAKUMARAN NAIR Vs K.I. PHILIP AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 14
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,DORAISWAMY RAJU
)-0.A. filed challenging the selection-Rejected-Respondents not preferred appeal or review petition against the order but preferred another 0.A. challenging the selection­ Division Bench of the central administrative tribunal directed the Chief Engineer to dispose of the representations by the Committee that note sheet destroyed only after entries in tabulation sheet-Also ignored pleading-Available records sufficient to conclude the matter-Ought to have exercised great care. Respondents challenged the selection of appellant as Electrician (HS) before the central administrative tribunal and
Date of decision : 10-09-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5340/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
474UNION OF INDIA Vs MAMTA ANURAG SHARMA AND ANR. – [2001] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 571
Judge Name: M.B. SHAH,R.P. SETHI
-Government of Jndia permilled Inter-Cadre D transfer of husband from Andhra Pradesh to West Bengal-Wife’s petition for transfer to Andhra Pradesh cadre dismissed by central administrative tribunal -Writ petition before High Court-High Court directing the Central Governmem to consider request of an application was filed before the central administrative tribunal (for short A the ‘CAT) at Bangalore for setting aside the allocation of the respondent and her husband to JPS Cadre at Karnatka. On 2.2.1994, the order passed by the Government of India was stayed by the CAT. Later on the
Date of decision : 05-09-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6281/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
475SUSHMA MUTREJA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2001] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 193
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,RUMA PAL
to 30. However, the seniority list was again re-drawn up without consultation with Department of Personnel and G without any reason. The appellant’s seniority was again altered in this re­ drawn up seniority list. The central administrative tribunal dismissed the applications filed by the
Date of decision : 01-08-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4995/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
476SWAPAN KUMAR PAL AND ORS. ETC. Vs SAMITABHAR CHAKRABORTY AND ORS. – [2001] 3 S.C.R. 641
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,B.N. AGRAWAL
. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.7.96 of the central administrative tribunal at Calcutta in O.A. No. 1360 of 1990. WITH Civil Appeal No. 3767 of2001. L.N. Rao, P.P. Rao, P.P. Malhotra, Sr. Advocates Shambunath Singh, P.S. D Sudheer, Pratap Venugopal for K.J. John, Raj Kumar Gupta. For condonation of delay in filing SLP) F PATTANAIK, J. The appeal filed by the private persons and the Special G Leave Petition filed by the Union of India, are directed against one and the same judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench in O.A. No. 1360 of 1990. Though
Date of decision : 09-05-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/247/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
477NIRANJAN PRASAD SINHA AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2001] 3 S.C.R. 636
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,S.N. PHUKAN
Arvi.nd Kumar Sharma and D.S. Mahra for the H 638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [200 I] 3 S.C.R. A Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PHUKAN, J. In this appeal the two appellants have assailed the order dated 26.05.1995 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Patna. The B
Date of decision : 09-05-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10912/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
478ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN. AND ANR Vs A. ARTHUR JEEN AND ORS. – [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1183
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
was published in the newspa­ pers. 1183 E F G H A B 1184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. Original applications .were filed before the central administrative tribunal challenging the aforesaid selection of the candidates. But the selected candidates were not made parties before the central administrative tribunal , Chennai Bench who were the respondents iu the writ G petition before the High Court. S.L.P. No. 2377 of 2001 is filed by the petitioners in W.P. No. 16766 of 2000 in the writ petition before the High Court. In short, the facts and events leading to
Date of decision : 12-04-2001 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/14656/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
479UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. Vs LALITA S. RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1059
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,U.C. BANERJEE,B.N. AGRAWAL
interview filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , Principle Bench, New Delhi which was registered as O.A. No. 1603 of 1987. The Tribunal in the aforesaid case came to the conclusion that the ad hoc appointees being B c D E F regularised after being selected, that was, however, dismissed by the Court on 4.10.1994. While dismissing the Writ Petition this Court had observed that dismissal will not prevent the petitioners from moving the Tribunal or any other appropriate forum. Said Dr. Pande then approached the central administrative tribunal , Principal
Date of decision : 10-04-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2478/2000 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
480  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
V.S. MALLIMATH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2001] 2 S.C.R. 567
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,S.N. PHUKAN,B.N. AGRAWAL
payable for the period of service as Member, NHRC-All lndia Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1958, Rr. 16, 17 and 18. F Rule 4(2)-Leave encashment-Retired Chief Justice appointed as Chair- man, central administrative tribunal (CAT)-On retirement from Tribunal, he .. t was and Members (Salaries, Allow­ ances and other Conditions of Service) Rules, I993. The petitioner, a retired Chief Justice of a High Court, was ap­ pointed as Chairman, central administrative tribunal . On his retirement from the Tribunal, the petitioner was appointed as Member, National Human
Date of decision : 21-03-2001 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/203/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
481DR. A.K. DOSHI Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2001] 2 S.C.R. 320
Judge Name: D.P. MOHAPATRA,S.N. VARIAVA
meeting of the Selection Committee. Ultimately, the appellant was appointed as Member (Technical), Company Law Board. … H Respondent No. 2 challenged the appointment of the appellant be- 320 DR. A.K. DOSHI v. U.Ol. [SN. VARlAVA, J.] 321 fore the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal Respond­ ent before the central administrative tribunal . The central administrative tribunal by an Order dated 3rd February, 1999 quashed the appointment of the Appellant. The Appellant challenged the Order dated 3rd February, 1999 in a Writ Petition before the High Court at Delhi. This Writ
Date of decision : 02-03-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1692/2001 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
482P. MOHAN REDDY ETC. Vs E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS. – [2001] 1 S.C.R. 1068
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,K.G. BALAKRISHNAN,B.N. AGRAWAL
::.asis of50 per cent, fill up the same by making direct recruitment; and to draw up H seniority list on the basis of amended rule. Seniority lists were prepared. 1068 t P MOHAN REDDY v. E.A.A. CHARLES AND ORS 1069 Applications were filed before central administrative tribunal , alleging
Date of decision : 16-02-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3056/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
483E.S. RAJARAM AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2001] 1 S.C.R. 203
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,S. RAJENDRA BABU,D.P. MOHAPATRA,DORAISWAMY RAJU,SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
prior to May 15, 1987, have filed this appeal challenging the judgment of the Madras Bench of the central administrative tribunal (for short the CAT) dated October 4, 1996 in OA No. I 096 of 1996 dismissing the case with the observation that 1t would be appropriate for the applicants to approach
Date of decision : 10-01-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/441/2001 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
484UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs M. ASLAM AND ORS. – [2001] 1 S.C.R. 62
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,B.N. AGRAWAL
the employees of Unit-run canteens, which provided canteen facilities to the troops at the unit leave. The respondents filed an application before central administrative tribunal claiming benefits as regular defence personnel employees or at least as civilian employees serving under the central administrative tribunal Would have the jurisdiction to entertain applications by such employees under the provisions of the central administrative tribunals Act, 1985. (69-D-GI E 3.1. Although the statues of the employees serving in Unit-run canteens F is that of Government servants
Date of decision : 04-01-2001 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1039/1999 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
485T. SUDHAKAR PRASAD ETC. Vs GOVT. OF A.P. AND ORS. – [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 610
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,R.C. LAHOTI,K.G. BALAKRISHNAN
controlled by the Government. On coming into force of the Act and constitution of the central administrative tribunal all the jurisdiction, powers and authority exercisable immediately before that day by all courts, which would include the High Courts (except the Supreme Court) in relation to the to such Tribunal; F (b) the references to the Advocate- General in Section 15 of the said G H Act shall be construed. (i) in relation to the central administrative tribunal , as a reference to the Attorney- General or the Sol;citor-General or · the Additional Solicitor- General; and (ii
Date of decision : 13-12-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5089/1998 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
486S. RAMANATHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 450
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,B.N. AGRAWAL
did not get promotion to the Indian Police Service in time. The triennial review, which was due in 1987, F was initiated in 1989 and completed in 1991 with an increase in the cadre strength. The appellants appealed to the central administrative tribunal seeking mandamus on the ground of inaction central administrative tribunal , Madras in O.A. No. 893 of 1992. WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 2561-65/99 and 2566/99 and W.P. (C) No. 366/98. Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, P.N. Mishra, Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, Sr. Advs., K.V. Viswanathan, Athul Sinha, K.V. Venkateswara, K.V. Vijay
Date of decision : 07-12-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2560/1999 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
487STATE OF PUNJAB Vs V.K. KHANNA AND ORS. – [2000] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 200
Judge Name: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,U.C. BANERJEE
paragraph 4 of the report was pleased to observe: c D E “4. Admittedly, the respondent has not yet submitted his reply to the charge-sheet and the respondent rushed to the central administrative tribunal merely on the information that a charge-sheet to this effect was to be issued to him
Date of decision : 30-11-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6963/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
488OM KUMAR AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA IN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. – [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 693
Judge Name: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,U.C. BANERJEE
that his client had filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal and the matter is pending. Sri K.T.S. Tulsi, appearing for Sri Baidwan submitted that his client’s role was so meagre in the entire episode that it was a case where he should have been exonerated fully. A memorial imposed, we should not go into further enhancement of punishment, so far as reduction of punishment is concerned, his case is now pending before the central administrative tribunal . We, had therefore, stated that it would be for the Tribunal to consider his case in accordance with law. Sri
Date of decision : 17-11-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/21000/1993 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
489BADRI NATH Vs GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. – [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 573
Judge Name: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,U.C. BANERJEE
promote the writ petitioner w.e.f. 16.1.1977 to the super-time scale, being the date on which his junior was promoted to the said scale. These petitions were transferred to the central administrative tribunal and were dismissed. Hence this appeal. G The appellant submitted that the State acted. Ramaswamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1982)1 SCC 510 and Baidyanath Mohapatra v. State of Orissa, [1989] 4 SCC 664, distir.guished. CIVIL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2453 of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 10.6.86 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in T.A. No
Date of decision : 29-09-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2453/1987 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
490UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs DR. VIJAYAPURAPU SUBBAYAMMA – [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 372
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,S.N. PHUKAN
. Dhingra v. Union of India, [1996) 7 SCC 564 and T.S. Thiruvengadam v. Secretary to Government of India, [1993) 2 SCC 174, held D inapplicable. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5346 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad, she was not entitled to pension. Under such circumstances, the respondent in the year 1996 filed an O.A. before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) for direction D to the appellants herein, to grant pro rata pension in view of the
Date of decision : 22-09-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5346/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
491ELECTRICITY EMPLOYMENT UNION ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2000] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,S.N. PHUKAN
83 of the Act The central administrative tribunal rejected the claims of the appellants and held that as per the agreements entered into among the successor States under section F 67(3) of the Act, their services were allocated to the Board of State of Punjab and that they were working on, J. These three appeals are directed against the judgment dated 17th July 1995 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. Three applications fil<:d before the Tribunal by the Electricity Employment Union, Shri Bal Krishan and Shri Harjinder Singh Brar were disposed of by the common
Date of decision : 29-08-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10705/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
492KUNHAYAMMED AND ORS Vs STATE OF KERALA AND ANR. – [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 538
Judge Name: K.T. THOMAS,R.C. LAHOTI,D.P. MOHAPATRA
relevant rules contained in central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, (iii) the review applicants were not in the category of persons aggrieved, and (iv) the review petitions C were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and the delay was not explained. Thus the case
Date of decision : 19-07-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12309/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
493UNION OF INDIA Vs MADRAS TELEPHONE S.C. AND S.T., SOCIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION, ETC. – [2000] 3 S.C.R. 618
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,R.P. SETHI,SHIVARAJ V. PATIL
contending that the directions given by this Court in Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association had not been implemented. The other connected appeal (Nos. 6485-86 of 1998) is directed against the order of central administrative tribunal . The appellant had chal­ lenged the Judgment of this Court dated 13.2.97 in the case of Union of India v. Madras Telephone SC/ST Social Welfare Association in C.A. No. 4339 of 1995. By this appli­ cation, the department also seeks further directions as to the mat1Iler in which judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad
Date of decision : 26-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4339/1995 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
494  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.K. SHANMUGAM AND ANR. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2000] 3 S.C.R. 554
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,S. RAJENDRA BABU,N. SANTOSH HEGDE
(Electrical) Class I challenged the ~ E said seniority list before the central administrative tribunal . Molding that the ad-hoc promotion~ made purely as a stop gap arrangements cannot be counted towards seniority, the Tribunal allowed the applications. Hence the present appeals. F Dismissing out of judgment dated June 27, 1996 in O.A. No. 108/ 96 passed by the Madras Bench of the central administrative tribunal and other (Civil Appeal No. 5081 of 1994) against judgment and order dated November 5, 1993 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 286/92. In 0.A. No. 108/96 the Madras Bench of
Date of decision : 25-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5086/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
495KUNAL NANDA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [2000] 3 S.C.R. 214
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,DORAISWAMY RAJU
, instead of permanent absorption the appellant was repatriated to his parent depart- ment. The central administrative tribunal dismissed the appellant’s claim F for permanent absorption. The High Court dismissed the appellant’s writ “I petition. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this be for more than five years, the appellant was repatriated to his parent department and also relieved with effect from 31.1.99. (A.N.) with a direction to report for duty to the parent department. Apprehending the same, the appellant moved the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New
Date of decision : 24-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2895/2000 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
496  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs RS.SHARMA – [2000] 3 S.C.R. 151
Judge Name: K.T. THOMAS,D.P. MOHAPATRA,S.N. VARIAVA
erroneously adhering to the “Sealed Cover Procedure”. The central administrative tribunal (for short ‘the Tribu- D nal’) before which he approached for redressal of his grievance has upheld his contentions and directed the appellants to open the sealed cover and give effect to the recommendations
Date of decision : 18-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6995/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
497COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs FARID SATTAR – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1067
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,DORAISWAMY RAJU
mistake in fixation of his pay. Respondent challenged the Memorandum refixing his pay, before central administrative tribunal , on the ground that the pay which he was drawing as Senior Accountant has to be protected, even if he was reverted to the post of Accountant. The appellants contended that his pay was not required to be protected because the respondent was bound by the terms and conditions of the unilateral transfer and his pay was to be fixed as · direct recruit. central administrative tribunal allowed the application, holding that respondent’s case was to be governed by
Date of decision : 07-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13020/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
498UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs REKHA MAJHI – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1058
Judge Name: V.N. KHARE,Y.K. SABHARWAL
0.A. before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta. The Tribunal was of the view that since the respondent was not re-employed as contemplated under rule 2l(ii) of the Rules, she was entitled to :lraw dearness relief on the salary as well as on the family pension. Consequently, the O.A
Date of decision : 06-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/679/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
499  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
T. VIJAYAN AND ORS . Vs DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER AND ORS. – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 971
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,D.P. WADHWA
Fireman, as on 31.12.1992, was published wherein all the appellants were shown below the contesting respondents 4 to 143. This seniority list was challenged by the appellants before the central administrative tribunal but the Tribunal by its impugned judgment dated 13.3.1996 dismissed the petition
Date of decision : 05-04-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2180/1998 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
500COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH AND ORS. Vs DR. AJAY KUMAR JAIN – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 839
Judge Name: D.P. WADHWA,RUMA PAL
could not have asked for emoluments under the Quick Hire Scheme at the same rate as he was getting as Pool Officer. Partly allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The impugned judgment of the central administrative tribunal whereby it directed the appellant<; to put the respondent on duty as the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Comt was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated May 24, 1994 of the central administrative tribunal (Lucknow Bench) . (‘CAT’ for sho1t). The respondent, a Scientist, had filed Original Application (OA No
Date of decision : 31-03-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6806/1995 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
501NAR SINGH PAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 752
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,R.P. SETHI
Manager, Telecom Department, G.M.T. Office, Lucknow, on 21.7.1992 but the representation was not heeded to and, therefore, the appellant filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), on 25.8.1992 which was dismissed on 4.12.1997
Date of decision : 29-03-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2280/2000 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
502ROOP SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. Vs RAM SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 605
Judge Name: M.B. SHAH,DORAISWAMY RAJU
Director General considered for promotion-Another officer.filing an applica­ tion before central administrative tribunal claiming consideration on the ground that he also ought to have been granted notional promotion as Addi­ tional Director General, and, therefore he should have also been considered­, who had been granted on 10.6.1998 notional promotion to the post of Additional Director General (Works) with effect from 22.2.1975, was considered for the post of Director General in January 1999. Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the central administrative tribunal claiming that he
Date of decision : 28-03-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4430/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
503UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs R. SARANGAPANI AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [2000] 2 S.C.R. 495
Judge Name: M. JAGANNADHA RAO,RUMA PAL
annual increment-Cut-off date fixed as I. I: I 986-Petitions filed before differ- A B c ent Benches of central administrative tribunal challenging the cut-off date- D ·Bangalore Bench allowing the claim-Similarly Jabalpur Bench and Chandigarh Bench allowing the benefit-But Madras Bench declining to grant relie.f- Matter referred to Full Bench at Madras-Full Bench upholding the decision of Madras Bench and overruling decision of Bangalore Bench-Held, Full Bench of central administrative tribunal , Madras rightly held Government E 0.Ms. dated 22.JO.I990 and 3I.3.I992 valid-Cut-off date
Date of decision : 15-03-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4247/1998 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
504MOHD. RIAZUL USMAN GANI AND ORS. Vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, NAGPUR AND ORS. – [2000] 1 S.C.R. 771
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,D.P. WADHWA
by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench. On appeal filed by t.:nion of India this Court said that the procedure adopted by the Commission was a legitimate. The decision of the central administrative tribunal was set aside. B c Applying the principles laid down by this Court
Date of decision : 11-02-2000 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1010/2000 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
505S.I. ROOPLAL AND ANR. Vs LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND ORS. – [1999] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 310
Judge Name: S.P. BHARUCHA,R.C. LAHOTI,N. SANTOSH HEGDE
officials in their parent department (BSF) was not considered for determining seniority of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police. One of the transferee officials ‘A’ filed an application before central administrative tribunal (hereinafter called CAT) claiming that his continuous officiation on a substantive Judgment anq Order dated 4.11.93 of the central administrative tribunal , Delhi in O.A. Nos. 1414 and 1415of1994. E Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, P.P. Rao, S.K. Dholakia, F Mahabir Singh, Uma Datta, Tarun Sharma, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.W.A. Qadri, Ms. Sushma Suri, S.N. Terdol, Y.P
Date of decision : 14-12-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5363/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
506A.P. AGGRAWAL Vs GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI AND ANR. – [1999] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 443
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,M. SRINIVASAN,R.C. LAHOTI
Member, Sales-tax Appellate Tribunal but to no avail. The Central Government caused a fresh advertisement to be issued B calling for fresh applications and proceeded to process the applications received pursuant thereto. The appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal for Tribunal. As there was no response to any representation and the Government proceeded to process the applications received pursuant C to the fresh advertisements, the appellant filed O.A. No .630 of 1998 on the file of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench. New Delhi for quashing the
Date of decision : 16-11-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6529/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
507S.L. CHANDRAKISHORE SINGH ETC. ETC. Vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 323
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,R.P. SETHI
those whose names found place in the list prepared under Rule 24 and their appointments not having been made purely as a local arrangement for a period not exceeding six months, we have no difficulty in upholding the view c … of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench whose Engineers who joined the service with a degree; and the other category was of diploma holders with six years experience. The diploma-holders went to the central administrative tribunal and their contention was accepted. In appeal the order of the Tribunal was set aside mainly on the H ground
Date of decision : 01-10-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5664/1999 | Direction Issue : CA 5664/1999 & 5663/1999 ALLOWED, CA 5665/1999 DISMISSED
508M.RAMACHANDRAN Vs GOVIND BALLABH AND ORS. – [1999] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 38
Judge Name: S.P. KURDUKAR,R.P. SETHI
A M.RAMACHANDRAN v. GOVIND BALLABH AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 B (S.P. KURDUKAR AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] Service Law : central administrative tribunal (Group Band C Miscellaneous Posts) C Recruitment Rules, 1989-Rule 5(1) and (2), proviso. Inter se seniority-Determination of taken into account for determining seniority as the rules hold the field. Words and Phrases : G “Source”-Meaning and interpretation of in the context of Rule 5(2), proviso of the central administrative tribunal (Group B and C Miscel­ laneous Posts) Recruitmelll Rules, 1989. Central
Date of decision : 21-09-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2704/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
509  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
R.P. KAPUR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 121
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,M. JAGANNADHA RAO,N. SANTOSH HEGDE
. The appellant’s pension was fixed on the basis of the average emoluments drawn by him during the 10 months preceding the date of his suspension i.e. 21-1-1982. The appellant filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal contending that there was notional revision of his pay months before retirement are to be taken into account. [133-G-H; 134-A] c D E F G H CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4323 of 1999. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.10. 96 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh in O.A. No. 423/HR/1994. In-person for
Date of decision : 09-08-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4323/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
510ZUNJARRAO BHIKAJI NAGARKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1999] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 87
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,D.P. WADHWA
imposed penalty on the assessee. No allegation of corrupt motive was there. The Respondent did not want to produce any witnesses and the list of documents pertained only to record of the case. Appellant challenged the proposed inquiry, before the central administrative tribunal , which was confiscation of the goods. E The appellant approached the central administrative tribunal , Mumbai (CAT) challenging the proposed inquiry by filing Original Application No. 250 of 1998 on March I 8, 1998. While admitting the application CAT granted p interim relief and stayed the disciplinary
Date of decision : 06-08-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4294/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
511UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI CHETAN S. NAIK ETC. – [1999] 3 S.C.R. 1275
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,M. JAGANNADHA RAO,N. SANTOSH HEGDE
Respondent. G Intervenor-in-person for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Thes~ two special leave petitions have been preferred against the H 1275 1276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R. A judgments of the central administrative tribunal (Karriataka Bench) in O.A. No. 1221 of 1994 and O.A. No. 1904 of 1995 dated 25.2.1997. The Transferred Case relates to Writ Petition No. 8320 of 1997 (Madras High Court) wherein the judgment of the Full Bench of the central administrative tribunal (Madras Bench) in OA No. 960 of 1994 dated 3.6.1997 and the
Date of decision : 30-07-1999 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/21747/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
512UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1999] 3 S.C.R. 835
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,R.P. SETHI
Chief Draughtsman was higher than that of Assistant Foreman. D The central administrative tribunal dismissed the application of the Senior Scientific Assistant holding that the Award of the Board of Arbitration was made at the instance of the Senior Scientific Assistant themselves and thus, was binding in nature. The Tribunal further observed that ifthere is E still any dispute, the aggrieved parties may make appropriate representations before the 5th Pay Commission. In respect of the applications filed by the Assistant Foreman, the central administrative tribunal upholding the
Date of decision : 13-07-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7314/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
513GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA Vs C. DINAKAR AND ORS. – [1999] 3 S.C.R. 708
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
functi9n in the same post. D The first respondent filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal challenging the promotion and appointment of the fourth respondent as Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG and IGP) by a Notification issued by the appellant-State. The approaching the central administrative tribunal by preferring O.A. No. 200/97. The Tribunal by its order dated 15.1.98 dismissed F the 0.A 200/97. Aggrieved _by that, the first respondent preferred W.P. No. 4264/98. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the appeal and quashed the impugned
Date of decision : 14-05-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3115/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
514UNION OF PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs GAURAV DWIVEDI AND ORS . – [1999] 3 S.C.R. 649
Judge Name: B.N. KIRPAL,S. RAJENDRA BABU
D view of this on 26th of March, 1999 results were declared and 964 candidates who were successful, were called for interview. It is thereafter th!:lt the present respondents approached the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow Bench with a contention that 1480 E candidates should have been
Date of decision : 13-05-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3177/1999 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
515  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
MITRANGSHU ROY CHOUDHARY AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1999] 2 S.C.R. 683
Judge Name: S.S.M. QUADRI,S.N. PHUKAN
. 23of1991. Shahid Rizvi for Ms. Pratibha Jain for the Appellants. Ms. Rekha Pandey for V.K. Verma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B S.N. PHUKAN, J. The present appeal is directed against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Guwahati Bench in
Date of decision : 15-04-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3210/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
516V.C. PERUMAL Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1999] 1 S.C.R. 160
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,R.C. LAHOTI
… Annexure D to the Special Leave Petition which was also before the -t· central administrative tribunal . As per Annexure D, there were four vacancies which were existing at the time when the select list was prepared. These were carried forward from 1976 as no appointment was made to G these four
Date of decision : 20-01-1999 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4168/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
517  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KULDEEP SINGH Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. – [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 594
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,S.P. KURDUKAR
departmental enquiry found him guilty of having F taken Rs 200 out of Rs 1000 that he allegedly recovered from a factory owner to pay as wages to three labourers-complainants on 22.2.90. The order of dismissal was upheld in appeal before the Additional Commissioner of Police. On 28.2.97, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) upheld the dismissal. A writ petition to the High Court was dismissed since the judgment of the CAT was passed before the date of decision of the Supreme Court in G L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India AIR 1997 SC ll25. A Review Application against the judgment of the dismissed, after a regular departmental enquiry, from service, by order dated 03.05.1991, passed B by Dy. Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, which was upheld in appeal by Addi. Commissioner of Police by his order dated 22.07 .1991. The appellant then approached the Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi and the Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated 28th February, 1997, dismissed the Claim Petition. C A writ Petition filed before the Delhi High Court against this judgment was dismissed on 19.09.1997 as not maintainable as the judgment passed by the 28th February, 1997, passed by the central administrative tribunal , is set aside. The order dated 3rd of May, 1991, passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police by which the appellant was dismissed from service as also the order passed in appeal by Addi. Commissioner of Police are quashed and the
Date of decision : 17-12-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6359/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
518  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DWIJEN CHANDRA SARKAR AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 576
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
to them, shall be computed and be paid within a month. (584-G) · E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3093 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 16.2.88 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta in O.A. No. 355of1987. Mr. Sheela Goel for A.K. Goel for the by the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench is the correct one. The point for consideration is; whether the appellants are entitled to the time bound promotion by combining their service in the Rehabilitation Department of Government rendered by the appellants before being C
Date of decision : 15-12-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3093/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
519  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs CHOTELAL AND ORS. – [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 449
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,G.B. PATTANAIK
-Dhobis not holding Civil Post-Jurisdiction of central administrative tribunal barred. C Defence Services Regulation-Para 801 (a)&(b) and Rule 820-Public Fund- Regimental Fund-Not public fund-Exercise of some control by commanding officer on Dhobis-Will not mean payment to them is made from post so as to confer jurisdiction on the central administrative tribunal for issuing direction in relation to their ~~~~- E The Tribunal by the impugned judgment concluded that the ‘Regimental Fund’ from out of which Dhobis are paid their salaries gets covered by both the Consolidated Fund
Date of decision : 09-12-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/921/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
520UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs KISHORILAL BABLANI – [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 311
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,G.B. PATTANAIK
which was transferred to the E Bombay Bench of the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal, by its Judgment and order dt. 6.9 .94, has allowed the application of the respondent. The present appeal is filed from the said judgment and order of the Tribunal. The appellants have conceded
Date of decision : 03-12-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1328/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
521  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
RAM UJAREY Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 685
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,S.P. KURDUKAR
later transferred to the B court ofIVth Additional Civil Judge, Saharanpur, while the appeal was pending ~ in that court, central administrative tribunals Act, 1985 came into force and the appeal stood transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad. The Tribunal allowed the
Date of decision : 13-11-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5714/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
522DINKAR ANNA PATIL AND ORS. Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. – [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 564
Judge Name: G.T. NANAVATI,S.P. KURDUKAR
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5582 of B 1998. c From the Judgment and Order dated 7.1.97 of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay in 0.A. No. 126 of 1995. K.K. Singhvi, B.N. Singhvi and V.K. Garg for the Appellants. M.S. Nargolkar, S.S. Shinde and D.M. Nargolkar, in-person
Date of decision : 09-11-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5582/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
523  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
V. KASTURI Vs MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BOMBAY AND ANR. – [1998] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 269
Judge Name: S.B. MAJMUDAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
for pension at least from that date. The central administrative tribunal , Madras accepted this request of the respondent. While up-turning the decision of the Tribunal, this Court held that: C ” …………. As per the pre-existing Rules, the government servant was required to put in 30
Date of decision : 09-10-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5048/1998 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
524  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BAIDYANATH JENA AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 667
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,G.B. PATTANAIK
the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack (T.A. No. 90 of 1987). TI1eir case was that proviso to sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 5 ,- B provided that the officer whose name appeared in previous Select List should be considered for inclusion in the fresh list. Another application (0.A. 146 of was delivered by MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, J. Delay condoned; Leave granted. These appeals are from a judgment of a Full Bench of the central administrative tribunal dated 29.9.1988 delivered in T.A. No. 90 ofl987 along with 0.A No.146of1986. By a subsequent amendment in these appeals, the
Date of decision : 18-09-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4318/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
525  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.S. BINDRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 232
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,K.T. THOMAS
third case, it was alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 10 lakhs from a party and when the amount was not paid, he took steps for cancellation of bail granted to the party and also invigorated B the steps against that party. The appellant filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , which was dismissed. Hence this appeal. C Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. Want of any material is almost equivalent to the next situation that from the available materials no reasonable man would reach such a conclusion. While evaluating the materials the my grey hairs”. On 9-10~ 1985, Government of India (Ministry of Finance) axed the appellant down by serving an order of compulsory retirement. Though he challenged the order ~efore central administrative tribunal (New Delhi Bench) he was unsuccessful. Hence he has filed this appeal by
Date of decision : 01-09-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5583/1993 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
526  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DR. DURYODHAN SAHU AND ORS. Vs JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA AND ORS. – [1998] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 77
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,M. SRINIVASAN
appropriate steps for filling up the post after A complying with the relevant statutory provisions and issuing a fresh advertisement through the Public Service Commission. Against the aforesaid order of the central administrative tribunal , the petitioner and the State Govt. have appealed to this Secretary, Cuttack Surakhya Committee filed 0.A. 1439/93 before the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal at Bhubanes- D war. Another application 0.A. 1630/93 was filed by the Cuttack Surakhya Committee through Jitendra Kumar Mishra before the same Bench. A third application was
Date of decision : 25-08-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4215/1998 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
527  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs S.N. DUBEY AND ORS – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1166
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,M. SRINIVASAN,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
Court, by order dated April 8, 1991, granted special leave to appeal and passed the following order :- F G “Special leave granted. Heard counsel. We are inclined to take the view that the central administrative tribunal should not have struck down Rule 3(3)(c) of the Indian Administrative the residual Rules and if not covered under the Rules, under the A administrative powers and for that purpose the Rules should not have been struck down. Counsel for Union of India has told us during the course of hearing of the appeals that the relief granted by the central administrative tribunal so
Date of decision : 13-08-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1755/1991 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
528UNION OF INDIA ETC Vs TARA CHAND SHARMA AND ORS. ETC. – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1179
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,G.B. PATTANAIK
been rejected they approached the central administrative tribunal at Jaipur by filing OA Nos. 93, 121, 122 and 172 of 1994. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment being of the view that the ad hoc appointees are not entitled to get their services as ad hoc for the purpose of counting the substantive basis and after expiry of the sanction of the posts of Computor created for 1991 census on account of non availability of posts of Computor in the cadre, respondents nos. I to 4 were reverted. The said E order of reversion was assailed before the central administrative tribunal and
Date of decision : 13-08-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3946/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
529  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs M. SURYANARAYANA RAO – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 1060
Judge Name: S. RAJENDRA BABU,M. SRINIVASAN
pay than the respondent did. Being aggrieved the respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal for stepping up of his F pay on par with his junior, which was allowed. Hence this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was contended that according to the law .r laid inapplicable. c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3752 of D 1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 5 .3 .97 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad in 0.A. No. 913of1996. P.P Malhotra, A.K. Sharma, Ms. Anubha Jain and C.V.S. Rao for the E Appellants. J
Date of decision : 07-08-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3752/1998 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
530  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs N.Y. APTE AND ORS – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 988
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,M. SRINIVASAN
petition challenging the validity of the aforesaid amendment that the said rules were void and ultra virus the Constitution. The writ petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , who opined that by virtue of the amendment, the post of AM had been equated to the post of MG-II entirely within the domain of rule making authority and unless the rule is wholly unreasonable and irrational, court will not interfere with same. [993-D-H] B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil appeal No. 881 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.92 of the central administrative tribunal , New
Date of decision : 04-08-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/881/1993 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
531  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs DINANATH SHANTARAM KAREKAR AND ORS. – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 933
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
was published in the local newspaper. The central administrative tribunal found the service of the charge sheet and the show- cause notice on the respondent as insufficient and, therefore, set aside the order by which the respondent was removed from service. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the nor the show-cause notice was ever served upon the original respondent. Consequently, the entire proceedings were vitiated. [937-G-H; 938-A) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1477 of 1993. B From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.91 of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay
Date of decision : 30-07-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1477/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
532UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs ASHOKE KUMAR BANERJEE – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 414
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
increment permitted by the said FR which was rejected by the appellant. Respondent then filed a petition in the central administrative tribunal claiming the above benefit. The petition was allowed on the ground that as this was his actual promotion from the post of Junior Engineer to the post of, who might have got promoted earlier and night have got benefit of FR 22(l)(a)(i) only once. Such an anomaly is not intended by FR 22(l)(a)(i). (418-D-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2699of1997. B From the Judgment and Order dated 3 .12. 93 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta
Date of decision : 13-05-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2699/1997 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
533  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DAVlNDER BHATIA AND ORS. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 343
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
, by filing suits F which were transferred to central administrative tribunal under Section 29 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. The claims of the appellants were rejected by the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : The post of Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk is, Rajiv Nanda, Arvind Kr. Sharma and S.R. Bhat for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATTANAIK, J. Both these appeals are directed against a common judgment of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi dated 7.12.1990 disposing of the two suits filed before the sub
Date of decision : 12-05-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2733/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
534  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SECRETARY-CUM-CHIEF ENGINEER, CHANDIGARH Vs HARI OM SHARMA AND ORS. – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 99
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,K. VENKATASWAMI,S. RAJENDRA BABU
respondent approached the central administrative tribunal , H 99 100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 3 S.C.R. A Chandigarh which directed that the respondent shall be paid salary for the post of Junior Engineer and shall also be considered for promotion on regular basis on the basis of quota fixed Respondents. B A.K. Mahajan (NP) for Respondent-Ex-Parte. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment C dated 14.12.93 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The dispute relates to the
Date of decision : 29-04-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5546/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
535  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs K.G. RADHAKRISHNA PANICKER AND OTHERS – [1998] 3 S.C.R. 38
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,M. SRINIVASAN
From the Judgment of Order dated 8.2.91 of the central administrative tribunal , at Madras in O.A. No. 485 of 1989. P.P. Malhotra, N.N. Goswami and S. Sivasubramaniam, Hemant Sham1a, Barish Chandra, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Rajiv Nanda, Y.P. Mahajan, A.D.N. Rao, H 40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1998 pension and other retiral benefits. In Civil Appeal No. 4643 of 1992, which has arisen out of 0.A. No. 485 C of 1989 filed before the Madras Bench the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), the respondents joins as Project Casual Labour in the Southern
Date of decision : 28-04-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4643/1992 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
536SRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL ETC. Vs KRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTY AND ORS. ETC. – [1998] 2 S.C.R. 1108
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
A B SRI GOPABANDHU BISWAL ETC. v. KRISHNA CHANDRA MOHANTYAND ORS. ETC. APRIL 21, 1998 [SUJATA V. MANOHARAND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985/ central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. C S.22(3) (j)!Rule 17-Review-Scope of-Order passed by Central are not within the principles laid down in Order 47 Rule l. They F also .do not comply with the relevant Rules. Rule 17 of the central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1~87 prescribes, inter alia, that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within thirty r
Date of decision : 21-04-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3451/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
537  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
POSTGRADUATE INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, CHANDIGARH Vs FACULTY ASSOCIATION AND ORS. – [1998] 2 S.C.R. 845
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.N. RAY,A.S. ANAND,S.P. BHARUCHA,S. RAJENDRA BABU
post, reserved for Scheduled Tribe, was filled by promoting an ST candidate from the post below, such promotion was set aside by the E central administrative tribunal on the ground that the post of Secretary being a single point post, granting of reservation was unconstitutional. The correctness
Date of decision : 17-04-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3175/1997 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
538  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
PREM KUMAR VERMA AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] 2 S.C.R. 763
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,S.P. KURDUKAR
303(a) of the Manual was later on amended which laid down that candidates sent for F training in a later batch would rank junior to those who were sent for training in an earlier batch. Respondents Nos. 5 to 9 filed an application before the central administrative tribunal challenging the existence on the date the vacancy arose and on the date when the selection was completed. [767-E-H; 768-A) E F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2250 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.10.95 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh, in O.A. No. 470/PB of 1994
Date of decision : 15-04-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2250/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
539  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
l.C.A.R. Vs SATISH KUMAR AND ANR. – [1998] 2 S.C.R. 557
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,D.P. WADHWA,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
registered under the Societies Registration Act and is engaged in the research of agriculture, animal husban.dry, fishery, C etc. having network of research institutes in different parts of the country. It is aggrieved by the judgment dated August 26, I 996 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, were promoted under the relevant rules superseding the first respondent. This suppression was successfully challenged B by the first respondent in the central administrative tribunal on the ground that reservation in respect of appointments by promotion was not
Date of decision : 31-03-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1839/1998 | Disposal Nature : Case Allowed
540UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs K. SAVITRI AND ORS. – [1998] 2 S.C.R. 137
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
: Civil Appeal Nos. 6201-06 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.94 of the central administrative tribunal Cuttack in 0.A. Nos. 160-161and163of1993. N. Goswami, S.K. Dwivedi, Ashok K. Srivastava and B.K. Prasad for the Appellants. The Judgement of the Court was delivered by H PATTANAIK, J. These appeals are directed against the orders of the … U.0.1. v. K. SA VTTRI [PATTANAIK. J.] 139 central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench, dated 27.5.1994 and 27.10.1994 A passed in Original Applicati~n Nos. 160, 161 and 163of1993. It may be stated that the Union of
Date of decision : 04-03-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6201/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
541  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs BIJOY LAL GHOSH AND ORS. – [1998] 2 S.C.R. 69
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
Government by way of issuing a Circular dated 12-8-1987. E F G The claims of the r~spondents were denied by the appellants but the same was allowed by the central administrative tribunal . Hence this Appeal. The main contention of the appellants was that the respondents were neither and 12449of1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.95, 15.5.95 & 22.9.95 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta and central administrative tribunal , D Jabalpur, in 0.A. No. 591/91, 872/91 and 0. A. Nos. 30 & 53 of 1991. A Subba Rao, (P. Parmeswaran) (NP) for the Appellants
Date of decision : 04-03-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12448/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
542  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs DR. AKHILESH CHANDRA AGRA WAL – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1139
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
posts. The respondents (directly recruited doctors) filed a petition before the central administrative tribunal claiming that they alone should be given administrative powers. The Tribunal allowed the petition and held that the supernumerary post was different from regular posts and did not carry with F G it the administrative powers. Hence this appeal. H I 139 1140 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] I S.C.R. A Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : l. The view taken by the central administrative tribunal that those appointed in the supernumerary posts cannot claim the
Date of decision : 27-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14747/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
543UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs RAVI SHANKAR AND ANR. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1097
Judge Name: G.B. PATTANAIK,M. SRINIVASAN
impugned direction-Judgment of Tribunal set aside. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISIDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2681 of 1993 Etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 13. 11.92 of the Central Administrative , Tribunal , Delhi in 0.A. No. 1261of1989. Mrs. K. Amreshwari, Ms. Shashi Kiran and Mrs. Anil Katiysar for C. V. S. Rao, for the Appellants. S.M. Garg for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal is directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 13.l l.1992. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has
Date of decision : 24-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2681/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
544  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GUDUR KISHAN RAO AND ORS. Vs SUTIRTHA BHATTACHARYA AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 1053
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
direct recruit IAS officers, challenged the said two Notifications before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal quashed the two Notifications on the ground that these contravened E Rule 9 of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Hence this appeal. On behalf of. 6525 of 1994 Etc. B From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.94 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad in O.A. No. 118 of 1994. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Arvind Bobde, P.P. Rao, Venkat Ramani, P.Anoop, S. Muralidhar, P.S. Narasimba, V.G. Pragasam, Ms. Sashi C
Date of decision : 23-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6525/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
545ABRAHAM JACOB AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 780
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
the Government decision before the central administrative tribunal . The seniority in the cadre of Assistant Engineer was claimed on the basis of “- , continuous service in the rank of Asst. Engineer. The Tribunal accepted the claim of the promotees and passed an order quashing the seniority No. 12386of1996 Etc. From the Jugdment and Order dated 26.3.96 of the central administrative tribunal , at Emakulam in Kerala, in O.A. No. 15of1995. M.N. Krishnmani, Ramesh P. Bhatt, N.N. Goswami, Ms. Kumud L. Das, S.B.Upadhyay, Harish Chander, S.Wasim A. Qadri, Praveen Swamp, Arvind Kumar
Date of decision : 11-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12386/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
546  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
K. TRIMURTHULU AND ORS. Vs M.V.N. MURTHY AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 807
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
, were promoted as Highly Skilled Fitters Grade-11 by the Naval Dockyard Notifications dt 22.9.84 and 20.2.85. The D respondents challenged the promotions in the central administrative tribunal , contending that though they joined as skilled Fitters earlier to the appellants, . the Naval Dockyard basis of the Circular letter dt. 26.6.95 the Government may, if approached, consider the cases of the appellants for that limited purpose-. (810-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 880of1994. C From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.93 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabed
Date of decision : 11-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/880/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
547  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
S. RAJENDRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 786
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.94 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in R.A.No. 7 and 22 of 1994. R. Mohan and T. Raja for the Appellant. Mrs. Chandan Ramamurthy for M.A. Krishnamoorthy for the Respondent No. 1-2_ Sakesh Kumar for Mis. Hathi & Co. for the Respondent. The an application before the central administrative tribunal at Pondicheny for regularisation of his appointment as a Deputy Superintendent. His application was allowed. However, subsequently, on a review of its earlier order on the ground of there being an error apparent on the face of the record
Date of decision : 11-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5736/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
548  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs SHRI RATI PAL SAROJ AND ANR. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 593
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
respondent was suspended and criminal and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. H 593 594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1998] 1 S.C.R. A The respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal challenging the aforesaid withdrawal/cancellation of the offer of application before the central administrative tribunal challenging the withdrawal/cancellation of his appointment to the .,…. Indian Administrative Service by the letter of 9th September, 1986. The Tribunal held that the offer could not have been withdrawn after acceptance; if such G a step became
Date of decision : 04-02-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2393/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
549UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs N. CHANDRASEKHARAN AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 419
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
and Order dated 28.2.92 of the central administrative tribunal , Eranakulam in Kerala in 0.A. No. 21 of 1991. V.C. Mahajan, (Rajiv Nanda) and V. K. Verma for the Appellants. H Roy Abraham and M.M. Kashyap for the Respondents. U.O.I v. N. CHANDRASEKHARAN [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 421 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A -\- K. VENKATASWAMI, J. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Eranakulam Bench dated 28.2.1993 in 0.A. No. 21/91 have filed this appeal by special leave. After going through the pleadings and judgment, we
Date of decision : 29-01-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5477/1993
550  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
INDIA RAILWAY SAS STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 240
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
, Central Railway and others, [1993] Supp. 3 SCC 458, referred to. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4647of1992. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.4.91 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A .. No. 13/1998. “‘”‘( S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta
Date of decision : 21-01-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4647/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
551UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI RAM GOPAL AGARWAL AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 202
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,AJAY PRAKASH MISRA
order of Tribunal would not be recovered. E Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR (1982) SC 879, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4368of1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.3.90 of the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench in O.A. No. 17/88, 1990 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench, Gauhati, by virtue of which the order contained in letter No. R-IV 1/87 Orp/CRPF/EP­ IV dated February 24, 1989 was quashed. Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. H (C) No ……. of (1993 (C.C.20506/93) arises out of order dated
Date of decision : 15-01-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4368/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
552  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
S.K. MATHUR AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 115
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,D.P. WADHWA
appellants in the Press on deputation and the date of absorption of the appellants as Inspector (Control). Accordingly, the appellants were treated as senior to respondents 3 to 9. Being aggrieved, the respondents 3 to 9 preferred a petition before the C central administrative tribunal , which was the central administrative tribunal on the ground that there was no provision for appointment on deputation on the posts of Inspector (Control) under the Recruitment Rules as it is well-settled that in the absence of Statutory Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution, appointments E and
Date of decision : 13-01-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6229/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
553NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 41
Judge Name: S.B. MAJMUDAR,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
and Order dated 21.2.91 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi in Original Application No. I of 1989. M.N. Krishnamani and P. Narasimhan for the AppeIIants. B N.N. Goswami (Ms. Binu Tamta) for Mrs. Anil Katiyar for the C Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered by : S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. This appeal by grant of special leave under -<: Article 136 of the Constitution of India has brought in challenge the judgment D and order rendered by the central administrative tribunal . Principal Bench at New Delhi in 0.A. No. I of 1989, filed by the 429 original
Date of decision : 08-01-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2985/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
554  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs DR. (SMT.) SUDHA SALHAN – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 28
Judge Name: S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
. Jankiraman & Ors., [1991] 4 SCC 109, relied on. New Bank of India v. N.P. Seghal & Anr., JT (1991) 1SC498, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4266of1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.7.91 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi in 0.A. No. 927of1991 H was followed by a charge sheet issued to her on 8th of May, 1991. 28 — I U.O.l. v. DR. SUDHA SALHAN 29 On 18th of April 1991, the respondent filed an Original Application A before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, praying for the following reliefs
Date of decision : 07-01-1998 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4266/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
555  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
ARUN TEWARI AND ORS. Vs ZILA MANSAVI SHIKSHAK SANGH AND ORS. ETC. – [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 604
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
the procedure for selection and the criteria for selection are upheld. The impunged judgments and orders of the Tribunal are set aside. (614-H; 615-8] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.77 of 1995 E etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.94. of the central administrative tribunal , Jabal
Date of decision : 01-12-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/77/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
556UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs DR. S. BALIAR SINGH – [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 433
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
passes on retirement on the ground that his service with the Railways was of less than 20 years, he moved the central administrative tribunal which allowed the claim. Against this, the Union of India preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellant Union of India it was contended that the Bhatt v. Union of India, (1996) 34 ATC 92, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8327 of 1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Mumbai in O.A. No. 530 of 1996. G A.S. Nambiar, (Ms. Kanupriya Mittal, Ms. Sushma Suri for
Date of decision : 25-11-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8327/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
557SRI SURYANARAYAN SAHU ETC. Vs THE COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH – [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 440
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
-900 w.e.f. 1-08-1985 after he had appeared before the Expert Committee. The appellant moved an application before the central administrative tribunal , with a prayer to grant him scale of Rs. 425-700 from 01-01-1973 as Junior Draughtsman and the scale of Rs. 550-900 from 29-04-1974 as Senior cross appeals arise out of the judgment dated June 19, 1989 of the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”) on a writ application filed by Suryanarayan Sahu (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1993). At the relevant time Sahu was C working as a Senior
Date of decision : 25-11-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/507/1993 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
558UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs A. NAGAMALLESHWAR RAO – [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 169
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
, J.) 171 ..,. The Union of India is challenging in this appeal the order passed by A the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench in 0.A. No. I I 39 of 1992. The respondent was appointed as a Telephone Operator on 24th June, 198 I by the Divisional Engineer, Telecom, Eluru on
Date of decision : 18-11-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7766/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
559UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs L.V. VISHWANATHAN ETC. – [1997] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 112
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
retrospective operation of the pension rules must be set aside as arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. This contention has been upheld by the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench: Hence the Union of India has filed the present appeals. H It is contended. by the facts and circumstances of the present case. D The judgment of the central administrative tribunal , in so far as it strikes down the retrospective operation of Office Memorandum of 14.4.1987 is, therefore, set aside and the appeals are allowed. There will, however, be no order as. to costs. S.V.K.I. Appeals allowed. –
Date of decision : 11-11-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3343/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
560SMT, VIJAY GOEL AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 568
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,D.P. WADHWA
reported to the SSC for sponsoring candidates for regular appointments 568 – VIJAY GOEL v.U.0.1. 569 and that the appellants working as ad hoc LDCs would be terminated as and A when the nominees from the SSC reported for duty. The appellants thereafter moved the central administrative tribunal challenging the Respondents. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.P. WADHWA, J. Ten appellants in this appeal are aggrieved by the order dated August 4, 1995 of the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) dismissing their petition. They had approached the Tribunal E
Date of decision : 21-10-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/98/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
561UNION OF INDIA Vs B.S. AGARWAL AND ANR. ETC. – [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 327
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,G.B. PATTANAIK
making appointments to the post of General Manager and equivalent in the Railways. The respondents were not appointed to the post of General Manager and G equivalent, and the officers junior to the respondents were appointed for the post~. The respondents challenged the appointments before Central Administrative Tribunal , alleging that it was discril}linatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the juniors to the respondents were appointed by relaxing the provisions of Para 7.3 of the Scheme and not making H 327 328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A decision of Allahabad Bench central administrative tribunal in ASP B Sinha ‘s, case which indicated that residual service of 2 years as· contained in para 7.3 of the Scheme should be reckoned from the date of accrual of the vacancy. It was contended further that the appointments were made out of (1967) SC 1910 and H 330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A Prabhakar Rao v. State, (1985) Suppl. 2 SCR 573, referred to. B c D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6713of1997. From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.96 of the central administrative tribunal , New
Date of decision : 29-09-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6713/1997 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
562UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs R. SWAMINATHAN ETC. ETC. – [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 94
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,SUJATA V. MANOHAR,B.N. KIRPAL
in higher post. This resulted in an anomaly and Government Order bearing No. F2(78) E.III(A)/66 dated 4.2.1966 have been issued for removal of anomaly by stepping up the pay of a senior on promotion drawing less pay than his juniors. G The central administrative tribunal allowed the. G These appeals have been filed from the judgments of different Benches of the central administrative tribunal . The employees who are before us belong to the Department of Posts and Telegraph and Telecommunications. They can be broadly classified into two categories : those who belong to the
Date of decision : 12-09-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8658/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
563UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. Vs R. IYYASWAMY AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 16
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
reserved for graduate Engineers and they should not be made to compete with diploma holders.[22-G-H; 23-A] B c D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6122of1997 Etc.· From the Judgment and Order dated 7.5.93 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi in T.A. No. 85/87 in discriminatory and, therefore, E violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal has held that it is chai!enging the decision of Tribunal, the Union of India and also P.N. Kohli and Malcher Malviya who were respondent Nos. 2 and 3
Date of decision : 09-09-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6122/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
564UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI RAMESH KUMAR – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 668
Judge Name: K. VENKATASWAMI,V.N. KHARE
V.N. KHARE, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated March 2, 1990 passed by the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi whereby it has set aside the order of dismissal dated August 30, 1983 and further directed the appellants .to treat the period beginning from the date of. 5,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.” After a lapse of four years of passing of the order of dismissal, the B respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, under Section 19 of the central administrative tribunal Act
Date of decision : 02-09-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1323/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
565UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs G. GANAYUTHAM (DEAD) BY LRS. – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 549
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
instituted its own view of the punishment, is set aside. The punishment awarded by the departmental authorities is restored. [570-BJ E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 524 of 1988. F From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.86 of the the central administrative tribunal , Madras in against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal in Tr.A. No. 560 of 1986 dated 5.12.1986 allowing the petition filed by the respondent. The respondent was working as Superintendent of Central Excise. H While so, on 14.11.1977, was served with a memo of eight charges and an U.O.I. v
Date of decision : 27-08-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/524/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
566I.C.A.R. AND ANR. Vs T.K. SURYANARAYAN AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 322
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,G.B. PATTANAIK
SCC 595, relied on. E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5502 and F 5504 of 1997. Form the Judgment and Order dated 25.11.93 and 31.5.94 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad in OA. No. 992 of 1991 and 270 of 1991. A.K. Sikri, V.K. Rao, Piyush Sharma and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Appellants. Sanjeev Malhotra and U.U. Lalit for the Respondents. G The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 16873 of 1995, the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad
Date of decision : 05-08-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5502/1997 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
567UNION OF INDIA Vs K.N. SIVADAS AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 211
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Reserved Tlained Pool which was set up to meet manpower shortfalls in the Department of Posts/Telegraphs. Though the pool itself was discontinued after some time, D all tlie members were absorbed by the concerned departments. The appel­ Iiints however applied before the central administrative tribunal claiming employees. The first of such applications came up before the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench which is the subject-matter of CA Nos. 80-123 of 1996. The Tribunal directed that the applicants before them who had been rendering service for eight hours a G day continuously, on
Date of decision : 01-08-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/80/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
568CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS. Vs C.R. RANGADHAMAIAH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 63
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,M.M. PUNCHHI,S.C. AGRAWAL,A.S. ANAND,S.P. BHARUCHA
the Running Allowance for the purpose of retirement and other benefits was reduced from 75% as prescribed in Rule 2544 to 45% with effect from January 1, 1973. After the constitution of the central administrative tribunal under the Administra- tive Tribunals Act, 1985, the said Writ Petition was transferred to the E Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) and was registered as No. T-310of1985. The said petition was allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated August 6, 1986 and the order of the Railway Board dated March 22, 1976
Date of decision : 25-07-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4174/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
569K.C. SHARMA AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 87
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,M.M. PUNCHHI,S.C. AGRAWAL,A.S. ANAND,S.P. BHARUCHA
Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) dated July 25, 1994 in O.A. No. 774 of 1994. The appellants were employed as guards in the Northern Railway and they retired as guards F during the period between 1980 and 1988. They felt aggrieved
Date of decision : 25-07-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5082/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
570K. AJIT BABU AND OTHERS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 56
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,V.N. KHARE
ground within the period of limitation. E The central administrative tribunal laid down norms which were to govern the seniority of the employees of a particular organisation. In the light of the said judgment certain seniority lists were drawn and objections were invited. A number of review conduct may be based. One of the basic principles of administration of justice is that the cases should be decided alike. Thus the doctrine of precedent is applicable to the central administrative tribunal also. When even an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 is
Date of decision : 25-07-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3520/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
571BOMBAY CANTEEN EMPLOYEES’ ASSOCIATION, PRABHADEVI TELEPHONE EXCHANGE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1997] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,D.P. WADHWA
that view, the finding of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment is legal and warrants no interference. It is open to the respondents to avail of such remedy as is available to a regular employee including the right to approach the central administrative tribunal or the High Court or this Court thereafter for redressal of legal injury. C The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed. R.KS. Petition dismissed.
Date of decision : 09-07-1997 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/11954/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
572SH. I.K. SUKHIJA AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 627
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
Engineers and seniority vis-a-vis direct recruits were prepared and finalised in 1987. The seniority list was challenged before the central administrative tribunal , Bombay and the Tribunal quashed the list in so far as it E determined seniority between direct recruits and promotions. Subsequently a direct recruits was to be fixed subsequently. H 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. :i S.C.R. A A provisional seniority list of Assistant Engineers was prepared in 1986 and finalised in 1987. It was challenged before the Bombay Bench of the central administrative tribunal in O.A. No
Date of decision : 08-07-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3207/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
573MOHD. SWALEH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 298
Judge Name: S.B. MAJMUDAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Registrar 11ot elltitled to the pay of Registrar although he discharged the functions of Registrar since FR 49 was 11ot complied with- central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, R.28(3)-De/egation of Financial Powers Rules, 1978. E Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The appellant was also delegated cer­ tain financial powers under Rule 13 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978. The posts of Deputy Registrar, Joint Registrar and Registrar were Group A posts under the central administrative tribunal (Group
Date of decision : 09-05-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4412/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
574SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 382
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,D.P. WADHWA
in the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal G in the impugned order made in O.A. No. 629 of 1994, on March 22, 1995 and the review order following therefrom on May 23, 1996, has put the clock back, stating that prior to the amendment of the Rules putting two years’ limitation on carry
Date of decision : 09-05-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3641/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
575UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs P. SATHIKUMARNA NAIR AND OTHERS – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1076
Judge Name: S.B. MAJMUDAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Junior Colleges, similarly placed, when the Union of India proposed to and sought to implement its order dated 11th August C 1986 to them, applied to the central administrative tribunal for similar relief as granted by the High Court to the above respondents. The Tribunal rejected the claim will be applicable to these Junior G Lecturers, now designated as Lecturers, from their respective dates of appointment, in respective junior colleges in the Union Territory of Lak­ shadweep. The petitioners who approached the central administrative tribunal must also be treated likewise. They
Date of decision : 29-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/913/1987 | Direction Issue : C.A. No. 913/87 dismissed. C.A. Nos. 3108 and 3109/97 with W.P. No. 277/94 are also allowed.
576D. STEPHEN JOSEPH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1040
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,G.B. PATTANAIK
in Electrical Engineering. The central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench by the im­ pugned order has held that the respondents who are holding the post of C Junior Engineers and have three years’ regular service in that grade and also possess degree in Electrical Engineering will be entitled to get such promotion to 50% reserved quota and their experience of three years is not to be reckoned from the date of acquisition of the degree in Electrical Engineering. Such decision of the central administrative tribunal is being D impugned in this case. Mr. Venkataramani, learned
Date of decision : 25-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3118/1997 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
577UNION OF INDIA Vs MAKHAN CHANDRA ROY ETC. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 959
Judge Name: S.B. MAJMUDAR,M. JAGANNADHA RAO
appeals on special leave have been B moved by the Union of India and its officers challenging the orders passed by the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench at Cuttack by which each of the respondents in these appeals was given a higher pay-scale. We shall first deal with Civil Appeal No
Date of decision : 22-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10608/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
578SH. J.P.S. SAROHA AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 831
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,D.P. WADHWA
~istrative Tribunal, New Delhi in O.A. No. 173 of 1986. K.B. Sounder Rajan and T.L. Garg for the Appellants. P.P. Malhotra, Y.P. Mahajan and C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : E This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi made on May 30, F 1986 in O.A. No. 173/1986. The admitted position is that appellant No. 1 was appointed as a Junior Scientific Assistant, Grade-II on 30.10.1967. He was made per­ manent on April 1, 1970 and was further promoted as a Senior Scientific
Date of decision : 10-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1239/1987 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
579THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI GURU CHARAN DASS – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 827
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,D.P. WADHWA
and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appel­ lants. P.N. Misra for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed by the central administrative tribunal at Cuttack in T.A. No. 267/86 on May 26, 1987. A B c D E F
Date of decision : 10-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/676/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
580UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs T. SUNDARARAMAN AND ORS. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 792
Judge Name: SUJATA V. MANOHAR,V.N. KHARE
on the basis of 4 years’ experience or more. As a result, 20 candidates were called forinterview. Respondent No. 1 did not qualify for shortlisting and hence he was not called for interview. He along with one Dr. V.S. Gopalakrishnan filed an application D before the central administrative tribunal , Madras
Date of decision : 09-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/44/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
581HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THROUGH ITS REGISTRAR Vs SHRI UDAYSINGH S/O. GANPATRAO NAIK NIMBALKAR AND ORS. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 803
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,D.P. WADHWA
that the charge has not been proved. The Tribunal is not a court of appeal. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was taken away by the power under Article 323-A and invested the same in the Tribunal by central administrative tribunal Act. It
Date of decision : 09-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9506/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
582V.K. DUBEY AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 693
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,D.P. WADHWA
for the Respondents. G The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave· granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order dated 18.12.1996 H 693 694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R. A by the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad
Date of decision : 07-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2883/1997 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Dismissed
583K. MANlCKARAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 504
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Grade III to Grade II but he was not promoted. Therefore, he filed an E application before the central administrative tribunal stating that since three posts from Grade III were upgraded to Grade II, the total number of posts available in Grade II was 26 as against the original number of 23 and directed to consider the case of promotion of appellant to Grade II Welfare Inspector. [507-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2578 of C 1997. From the Judgment and order dated 19.9.95 and 8.2.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in O.A. No. 267/94 and R.A. No. 12
Date of decision : 02-04-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2578/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
584UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. Vs K.G. KULKARNI ETC. – [1997] 3 S.C.R. 385
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
. Leave granted. B These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench, made on July 17, 1996 in OA No. 368/96. The facts in appeal arising out of SLP No. 23039 of 1996, are sufficient for disposal of all the appeals. Therein, the admitted
Date of decision : 27-03-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2670/1997 | Disposal Nature : Leave Granted & Allowed
585L. CHANDRA KUMAR ETC. ETC. Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1186
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY,S.P. BHARUCHA,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,K. VENKATASWAMI,K.T. THOMAS
speedy relief in respect of their grievances.” Pursuant to the provisions of the Act, the central administrative tribunal , with five Benches, was established on November 1,1985. How­ ever, even before the Tribunal had been established, several writ petitions had been filed in various High Courts as II (“Establishment of Tribunals and Benches thereof’) con­ tains Sections 4 to 13. Section 4 empowers the Central Government to establish: (1) a central administrative tribunal with Benches at separate places; (2) aµ Administrative Tribunal for a State which makes a request in this behalf; and
Date of decision : 18-03-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/481/1980 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off | Direction Issue : ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
586HUKAM RAJ KHINVSARA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1157
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
. Sharma for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Delay condoned. Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal, by special leave, arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur, made on April 16, 1996 in O.A. No: E
Date of decision : 17-03-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2237/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
587UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs P.V. HARIHARAN AND ANR. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1050
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,K.S. PARIPOORNAN
Appellants. A.S. Nambiar and P.K. Manohar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B B.P. JEEVAN ‘REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench, allow­ ing O.A. No. 391 of 1991 filed by the respondents herein other ground, are heard by a Bench comprising atleast one Judicial Member. The Chairman of the central administrative tribunal and the Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunals shall consider issuing appropriate instructions in the matter. B.K.S. Appeal allowed. •
Date of decision : 12-03-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7127/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
588CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. Vs NAURANG SINGH AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 965
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,K.S. PARIPOORNAN
scale of the said five storekeepers, treating the same as personal pay to them only. Being aggrieved the respondents filed an application before the central administrative tribunal claiming the same pay scale as given to the said five storekeepers. The respondents invoked the principle “equal Verma and Salish Vig for the Respon­ dents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 8.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh allowing the Original Application filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein. The respondents H
Date of decision : 11-03-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4005/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
589SRI SANJOY BHATTACHARJEE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 915
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
condoned. E F This special leave petition has been filed against an order of the central administrative tribunal , made on July 8, 1996 made in O.A. No. G 879/93. Admittedly, the petitioner, having acquired Diploma in Engineering, had applied for and stood selected as Technician. The
Date of decision : 10-03-1997 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/6175/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
590PRAHALLAD BARAL Vs GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 628
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
learned counsel on both sides. G This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bhubaneswar, made on February 8, 1996 in Ap­ plication No. 6/91. The respondents-employees were appointed to the posts of L.D.C. in 1970-71. The appellant was later
Date of decision : 03-03-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1827/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
591LAXMI NARAIN MEHAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 463
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
Order of the Court was delivered : E F The petitioner was transferred from Kola to Mumbai on the ad­ ministrative ground as indicated in the order .. The petitioner approached Administrative Tribunal. The central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur by G its order dated November 28, 1996 has
Date of decision : 24-02-1997 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/3433/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
592M. HARA BHUPAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 455
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
M. HARA BHUPAL A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. FEBRUARY 24, 1997 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.] B Service Law : central administrative tribunal (Group Band C Miscellaneous Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1989/ central administrative tribunal Stenographers’ Ser- C vices (Group B and C, Hyderabad in O.A. No. 1333 of 1995. D. Prakash Reddy for .G. Prabhakar for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This special leave petition arises from the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad, made on December 24, 19% in O.A. No. 1333/95. G
Date of decision : 24-02-1997 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/3322/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
593INDIAN RAILWAY PERMANENT WAY INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 452
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
that, in an earlier batch of four applications ry similarly situated employees, the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench has given direction to grant the pay scales c claimed by them. After. the special leave petition was disposed of by this Court and an order was made in a contempt petition by the Tribunal, the Government considered the matter in the light of the decision given by the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore. On consideration thereof, by proceedings dated July 12, 1991, the Government have stated as under : D “‘ “In obedience duty directions issued by
Date of decision : 24-02-1997 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/3370/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
594UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. Vs B. PRASAD, B.S.O., AND ORS. ETC . – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 114
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
counsel for the parties. These appeals by special leave arise from the various orders passed H by the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench in different mat- 114 y 1 U.0.1. v. B. PRASAD, B.S.O. 115 ters. The main order was passed on 17.11.1995 in RA No. 4/95 in OA No. A 49/89
Date of decision : 17-02-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1572/1997 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
595STATE OF U.P. AND ANR. Vs GIRISH BIHARI AND ORS. – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 53
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,SUJATA V. MANOHAR,K. VENKATASWAMI
. Subsequently, the Governor cancelled his earlier order of extension before it actually came into effect. The respondent challenged the G aforesaid order before the central administrative tribunal on the grounds that the order granting extension had created a vested right in the respondent to continue cancelled the order dated 20th March, 1996. The respondent challenged the impugned· order before H 56 SUPREME COURT REPOR’VS [1997] 2 S.C.R. A the central administrative tribunal inter alia on the grounds that the Governor instead of acting on his fair judgment acted under pre-emptory
Date of decision : 14-02-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/795/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
596  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Vs MOHINDER SINGH – [1997] 2 S.C.R. 71
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
by the central administrative tribunal ; Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. AIIoWing the appeal, this Court .. HELD : 1. The central administrative tribunal has not referred to Article 311(3) at all in its order. It is not suggested that because of clause (3), the the Inspector General of Police on 30th September, 1991 whereupon the respondent approached the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. The Tribunal found, follow- B ing its earlier order dated June 2, 1995 in O.A. No. 232/Ch/94 (Baljit Singh v. Chandigarh Administration), that the ground
Date of decision : 14-02-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/787/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
597STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. Vs DR. S.S. SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. – [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1120
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
A STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. v. DR. S.S. SRIVASTAVA AND ANR. FEBRUARY 10, 1997 B (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 : central administrative tribunal -Powers of-On application of C employee Tribunal giving interim direction to Govemment to
Date of decision : 10-02-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/986/1997 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
598RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ACCOUNTANTS ASSOCIATION, JAIPUR Vs RAJASTHAN STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD AND ANR. – [1997] 1 S.C.R. 868
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.B. PATTANAIK
experience were prescribed for diploma-holders and ~ degree-holders. The central administrative tribunal , while upholding the difference in the experience criteria, had struck down the quota· rule whereunder promotion of diploma-holders was limited to 50%. The said decision of the Tribunal was
Date of decision : 04-02-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7257/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
599SHRI KAILASH CHAND AND ORS. Vs LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. – [1997] 1 S.C.R. 791
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,S.P. KURDUKAR
, therefore, the validity of Rule 26 as amended on May 19, 1989 in the above background. The connected matters also involve the same challenge and the same point of decision and they arise out of the unsuc­ cessful challenge made to this effect before the central administrative tribunal . Rule 26 as
Date of decision : 03-02-1997 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/525/1990 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
600CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Vs KULDEEP SINGH AND ORS. – [1997] 1 S.C.R. 454
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
6.9.96 of the Central Ad­ ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh in 0.A. No. 330 of 1989. K.B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the Petitioners. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This special leave petition arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh
Date of decision : 21-01-1997 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/492/1997 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
601J.N. GOEL AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1997] 1 S.C.R. 237
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
or the employee. The only reason given by the central administrative tribunal for striking down the said proviso as invalid is that in the matter of promotions which have been !- made on the post of Executive Engineer, the DPCs have not correctly applied the said criterion and have made directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. E · 704 of 1988 and O.A. No. 910 of 1989. The appeals relate to promotion of F Assistant Engineers to the post of Executive Engineer in the
Date of decision : 14-01-1997 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5363/1990 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
602BALIRAM PRASAD Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 199
Judge Name: N.P. SINGH,S.B. MAJMUDAR
office as peon-Decision of authorities to avoid employment of near relative in same D office-Held, exercise of such power without rhyme and reason is arbitrary and hit by Art. 14. ·k The appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , challenging the appointment of the appointment of respondent no. 7 as Extra Department Branch Post Master, bypassing A B the appellant was legally justified or not. The central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, Patna has taken the view that though the appellant C was more qualified to be appointed on the said post respondent
Date of decision : 17-12-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/16753/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
603UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs N.R. BANERJEE AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 10 S.C.R. 166
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam and Ms. Monita Jairath, for the Respondents. D The following order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. These appeals by special leave arise from the orders of the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur Bench, made on August 14, 1996 in OA E Nos. 219/95 and
Date of decision : 16-12-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/16986/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
604HARI SHAMRAO HIMJE AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 688
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
granted We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench dated 7.3.1995 made in OA No. 755/90. It is not necessary to narrate all the facts in this case. Suffice it to state that by order of this
Date of decision : 09-12-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/16741/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
605RADHEY SHYAM SINGH AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 669
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,FAIZAN UDDIN
,J.] 671 ). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A FAIZAN UDDIN, J. 1. This Civil Appeal has been directed against the order passed .by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 322/1995 dismissing the appellants
Date of decision : 09-12-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4190/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
606UNION OF INDIA Vs U.D. DWIVEDI ETC. – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 499
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S.C. SEN
year 1988 before the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi. The ground of challenge was that RAC, which conducted the assessment, was set up in an unconstitutional manner because the entire assessment was F conducted under the chairmanship of one Professor S
Date of decision : 03-12-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/15344/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
607G. DEENDAYALAN AMBEDKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 377
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.T. NANAVATI
Order dated 10.2.94 and 1.3.95 of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore in O.A. No. 753/93 and R.A. F No. 22 of 1994. S.R. Bhat for the Appellant. P.P. Malhotra, Wasim A. Qadri and D.S. Mehra for the Respon- dents. G “The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. 377 H 378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S:C.R. A These appeals by special arise against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench, made on 10.2.1994 and 1.3.1995 in OA No. 753/93 and RA No. 22/94 respectively
Date of decision : 29-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/15528/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
608J.S. CHHABRA ETC. Vs STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. ETC. – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 313
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
the relief that his seniority should be counted from 11.8.1971. The Writ Peti­ tion was transferred to central administrative tribunal . The appellant herein intervened in the above Application. He also filed separate petition challenging the recognition of the respondent ‘T’ and others as
Date of decision : 28-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6590/1995 | Direction Issue : STATE’S APPEAL ALLOWED
609UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs D.R.R. SASTRI – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 151
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
granted. 153 This appeal by special leave as directed against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Madras dated 23rd September, 1994 in OA No. 711 of 1993. By the impugned order the Tribunal has directed the appellant to allow the respondent the· benefit of option for the
Date of decision : 22-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14752/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
610  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SHRI PRATAP SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 11
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
application before the central administrative tribunal challenging his aforesaid allocation to CISF which was dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant preferred the present appeal. D On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the first proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules could not operate. [20-E-G] ·’ . 2.1. The central administrative tribunal erred in taking the view that – by remaining silent and not specifically declining the allocation made in E { January 1991 and the offer of appointment made in July 1991 he incurred an obligation to be governed by the result of the
Date of decision : 21-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6243/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
611UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs MAHENDER SINGH AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 734
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. I 5086 of 1996. E From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.96 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi in 0.A. No. I 105 of I 995. F G T.R. Adhyarujuna, Solicitor General, T.C. Sharma and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellams. B.T. Kaul and Rajiv Talwar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises against the order of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi made on February 8, 1995 in OA H No. 1105/95
Date of decision : 18-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/15086/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
612DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POSTS Vs B. RAVINDRAN AND ANR. – [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 638
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
undue hardship-Po/icy decision a/Central Government dated 25-11-1958 stood altered or modified to that extent by OMs of 1963, 1964, 1978 and 1983–0Ms of 1978 and 1983 did have a bindingforce-Contrary clarification dated 30-12-1985 rightly held by central administrative tribunal to be illegal ground that the respondent’s case could 638 • – DIRECTOR GEN. OF POSTS v. B. RAVINDRAN 639 not be regarded as a case of hardship in view of the circular dated 30- A 12-1985 issued by Director General, Posts and Telegraphs. The respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal challenging
Date of decision : 08-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4077/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
613UNION OF INDIA Vs K.R. THAMPI – [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 387
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Order dated 4.1.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Emakulam in Kerala in 0.A. No. 462 of 1995. Ms. A. Jain, Ms. Indra Sawhney and A.K. Sharma for the Appellant. E Mahender Singh, P.R. Malhotra, C.N. Sree Kumar and K.M. Balgopal, for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was
Date of decision : 04-11-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14778/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
614UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Vs KRISHAN BHANDARI – [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 270
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
the respondent had been drawing pay as per the pay scale prescribed for the post of Science Master. The respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal claiming for the scale of pay fixed for the post of District Science Master. c The case of the respondent was where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12 of the Constitutidn. [276 EF) CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3976 of G 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .8. 94 of the central administrative tribunal Chandigarh
Date of decision : 31-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3976/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
615SH. RAMESH KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 21
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
discrimination does not arise-Also question of C appointment of Junior and denial thereafter to appellant does not arise. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 14581 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 17.5.90 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi in O.A.No.1201 of against the order of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi made on 17.5.1990 in OA. No. 12011 G 87. The primary contention of the appellant which prima facie appeals us is that since the appellant was a casual worker and had attained the temporary status, throwing him out of service
Date of decision : 28-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14581/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
616UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs VIPINCHANDRA HIRALAL SHAH – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 750
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
during the period 1980 to 1985, and met in December 1986/January 1987 and prepared consolidated Select List for the vacancies of the years 1980 to 1986. Respondent was not considered in this list also. F Respondent filed application before central administrative tribunal , assailing the 1986
Date of decision : 25-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4786/1994 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
617DEVENDRA NARAYAN SINGH AND ORS. Vs STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 732
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
. G Appellants chalknged the order of the respondent Union Govern- ment, claiming the year of allotment to be 1979, vide application before Central – Administrative Tribunal . The Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellants. In appeal to this Court, appellants contended, that though the Select H of the Court was delivered by PAITANAIK, J. Leave granted. G This appeal by special leave is directed against the order dated 5th September, 1995 of the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. A Patna in O.A. No. 12 of 1993. The
Date of decision : 24-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13236/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
618  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION Vs SH. SUMESH KUMAR ETC. – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 712
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
different orders of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh cancelling the notices issued by the appellant to the respondents and further directing the appel­ lant not to revert the respondents from the promoted post. But the ques- E F tion of law involved being one and the same they referred ‘to as “The Recruitment Rules”). We will consider the facts in one case for deciding the point in issue, namely, in the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No. 11122 of B 1996 which is directed against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh dated 12.10.1995
Date of decision : 24-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13239/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
619MRS. SEEMA KUMARI SHARMA Vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ANR. – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 648
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
for the Appellant. T.A. Khan and T. Sridharan for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Shimla Bench made in
Date of decision : 23-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14531/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
620UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs BISHAMBER DUTT – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 650
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
and N.S. Behl for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench at New Delhi. The admitted position is
Date of decision : 23-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/14528/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
621UNION OF INDIA Vs SH. PUNNILAL AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 629
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
order dismissed by the Additional District Judge and the central administrative tribunal -On appeal held : The employee had not sought any relief in the suit for payment of back wages-Hence he is deban·ed from claiming the relief of backwages–Theref ore the prescribed authority under the Payment order of the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad made on March 2, 1995 in O.A. No. G m~~ H 629 A B 630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as a Shunter in 1980 he had filed a civil suit bearing No. 329/83
Date of decision : 11-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13269/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
622DELHI ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND ORS. Vs SUSHIL KUMAR – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 199
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,S.P. KURDUKAR
. According­ ly, his name was rejected. Aggrieved by proceedings dated December 18, 1990 culminating in cancellation of his provisional selection, he filed OA in the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal in the impugned order allowed the application on the ground that since the respondent had
Date of decision : 04-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13231/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
623P. RAVINDRAN AND ORS. Vs UNION TERRITORY OF PONDICHERRY AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 158
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
& S) 723, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) p Nos. 20933-36 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.2.96 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in O.A. Nos. 290, 292-93 and 782 of 1995. G K.M.K. Nair for the Petitioners. The following
Date of decision : 01-10-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/20933/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
624SUB-DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) AND ORS. Vs K.K. PAVITHERAN – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 95
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 13115-16 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 5.12.95 and 20.2.96 of the F central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam in Kerala in O.A. No. 787/94 and R.A. No. 2 of 1996. A.S. Nambiar, T.C. Sharma and C.V.S. Rao for the Appellants. K.M.K
Date of decision : 30-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/13115/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
625  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs SH. B.K. MEENA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 68
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,K. VENKATASWAMI
. Respondent submitted detailed written statement rebutting charges framed against him reserving his right to add new point. Respondent approached the central administrative tribunal , chal­ lenging the various orders passed against him including the memo of H charges. 68 – STATE v. B.K MEENA 69 The central administrative tribunal stayed the disciplinary A proceedings against the respondent. Petitioner State reinstated the respondent in service, revoking the order of suspension pending enquiry. Charge sheet was filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, who took cognizance
Date of decision : 27-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12563/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
626  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs MADHAV S/0. GAJANAN CHAUBAL AND ANR. – [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 503
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,FAIZAN UDDIN,G.B. PATTANAIK
was sought to be filled up by promotion from the Superintendents in Group A category from Scheduled Tribe candidates, the respondent filed OA in G the central administrative tribunal at Bombay. The Tribunal following the decision of this Court in Pasvan’s case (supra), by order dated March 11
Date of decision : 18-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12871/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
627JAHAR SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 237
Judge Name: M.K. MUKHERJEE,S.P. KURDUKAR
of Post, New Delhi, the appellant approached the central administrative tribunal . Before the Tribunal the respondent contested the claim of the appellant on the ground mentioned in letter dated 23rd July, G 1993 and also on the ground that there was a separation of cadre of Assistants of SBCO
Date of decision : 13-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11929/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
628AKHIL BHARTIYA SOSHIT KARAMCHARI SANGH, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 165
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
reasoned order will follow and accordingly this order is being passed. ‘ ‘ The question for consideration is whether the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Bench, committed any error in dismissing the O.As. filed before it on interpretation of the different circulars issued by the Railways
Date of decision : 12-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/16812/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
629UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs KESHAB LAL ROY AND OTHERS – [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 611
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,B.N. KIRPAL
to the persons who had put in ten years or’ service. The respondents represented that the service rendered by them to the ASL Railways be counted for granting pensionary benefits to them. The repre­ sentation having been rejected, the respondents approached the central administrative tribunal . The granting them pensionary benefits. This representation was rejected. Thereupon the respondents filed O.A. No. 113 of 1989 before the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, Patna, praying that they should be paid pensionary benefits by counting the entire service or atleast some percentage or
Date of decision : 09-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5804/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
630D. RADHAKRISHNAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 431
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
appeal by special leave arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench made on January 23, 1995 in OA No. 3/92. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed to Tamil Nadu State Police Services by direct recruitment on October 7, 1979. He was transferred
Date of decision : 02-09-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11997/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
631MOHAMMAD RAHMAT ALI Vs THE INSPECTOR OF REGISTRATION AND STAMPS, ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 400
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12019 of 1996. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.4.93 of the Andhra Pradesh central administrative tribunal at Hyderabad in R.P. No. 5737 of 1987. A. Raghuvir, R.S. Krishnan, D. Mahesh Bala and K. R. Nagaraja for the Appellants. K. Ram Kumar, Ms. Asha Nair
Date of decision : 30-08-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12019/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
632JOYACHAN M. SEBASTIAN Vs THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 193
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
August 6, 1984. He was further transferred to Trivandrum at his request on March 26, 1987. It is seen that when the seniority list was prepared as per the order of appointment, his seniority was shown not from the date of his initial appointment at Kohima. C Therefore, he filed OA in the Central Administrative Tribunal , Er­ nakulam Bench. The Tribunal by the impugned order dated July 6, 1994 made in OA No. 932 of 1994 dismissed the same. Thus this appeal by special leave. D It is also not in dispute that he has mentioned in his application E F for transfer to Doordarshan Kendra
Date of decision : 23-08-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11481/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
633RAMLAL Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 27
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
petition is filed against the order dated August 4, 1983 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench made in O.A. F No. 747/1987. The admitted position is that the petitioner was appointed G on ad hoc basis as a casual worker (khalasi) on August 1, 1962. He was terminated by an
Date of decision : 21-08-1996 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/15896/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
634COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY Vs T.P. KUMARAN – [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 732
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
order of the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam made on 16.8.1994 in OA No. 2026/93. The admitted position is that while the respondent was working as Income­ tax Officer, he was dismissed from service. He laid a suit against the order H of dismissal. The suit came to be decreed and he was
Date of decision : 16-08-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11399/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
635SH. V.K RAMAMURTHY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 583
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
A the Pension Adalat but the said Adalat gave the reply that his case could not come within the purview of Pension Adalat. Petitioner, thereafter, made one or two further representations to different authorities. Meanwhile, a retired employee had approached the central administrative tribunal , Bombay of the argument advanced by F the learned counsel for the petitioner is the decision of this Court in R. Subramanian’s case (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 881 of 1993) as well as the decision of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench in Ghan- G sham Das case against which decision the
Date of decision : 13-08-1996 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/174/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
636SH. NAJAMAL HUSSAIN MEHADI Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 496
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
the central administrative tribunal challenging the aforesaid order on the ground of malafides and it was C dismissed. Being aggrieved the appellant had filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the application before the Central Ad­ ministrative Tribunal the appellant filed an
Date of decision : 09-08-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10231/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
637RAMESH CHANDER AND ORS. Vs DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 530
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,K.S. PARIPOORNAN
dismissed. Thereafter, the appellants and S filed applica­ tions before the central administrative tribunal for reinstatement in . service with all consequential benefit including back wages. In the case of S, the Tribunal quashed the order of the disciplinary as well as that of the appellate Court HELD : 1. The reason stated by the central administrative tribunal to deuy back-wages to the appdlants is an irrelevant one and rests on very B fragile foundation. Moreover, the consequential order passed in the case of S was not adverted to by the Tribunal. On facts, when the
Date of decision : 09-08-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10382/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
638S.R. BHANRALE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 763
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,K.T. THOMAS
notice under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming his dues together with interest and con1pcnsation. Even that did not make the respondents n1ove. Ultimately the appellant filed an original application in the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in 1987. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents and granted numerous opportunities to the Union of D India lo file the counter and meet the claims as set up by the appellant. No counter \Vas ho\vever, filed and the claim remained unrebutted. How­ ever, the central administrative tribunal through the order impugned in this appeal
Date of decision : 19-07-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9489/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
639  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ESI AND ANR. Vs T. ABDUL RAZAK ETC. – [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 80
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
S.C.R. A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3952 of 1988 Etc. From the .Judgment and Order dated 4.11.93 and 19.9.94 of the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 116/90 and R.A. B No. 8 of 1994. c M. Chandrasekharan, Additional Solicitor General, V.J the circumstances there is no order as to costs. SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 13126-27 OF 1996 (C.C. NO. 368/1996) Delay condoned. E The petitioner had moved the central administrative tribunal , Ah- F medabad Bench for quashing the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by
Date of decision : 08-07-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3952/1988 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
640SH. ASHOK V. DAVID Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 723
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,B.L. HANSARIA
given year of allotment accordingly. H Tl3 724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A The appellants filed a petition in the central administrative tribunal for being given the same year of allotment as was given to their ,juniors, which was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the appellants consequential result that proper year of allotment was not assigned to them. They, therefore, ap- F proached the central administrative tribunal with prayer to direct the Union of India to give them the year of allotment as 1979 (instead of 1982), which had been given to the persons who were really
Date of decision : 10-05-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8391/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
641P.S. RAJYA Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR – [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 631
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,K. VENKATASWAMI
placed under suspension on 31.5.90. As mentioned above by order dated 3.8.90 High Court of Patna quashed the cognizance G taken by the Special Judge and remitted the matter for fresh CO!lsideration. The appellant again moved the central administrative tribunal , Patna for promotion and other reliefs
Date of decision : 09-05-1996 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/434/1996
642GAYA BAKSH YADAV Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 540
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
together on the basis of their continuous length of service and the direct recruits correspondingly on the basis of their inter se ranking assigned by the U.P.S.C. and then an all India list be prepared by rotating the officers in the two lists in the ratio of 1 : 1. The central administrative tribunal F, arising in this Batch of 5 appeals, directed against the judgment and order dated 28.5.1987 of the H 542 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi. B c D E F G A representative petition, representing the interests of
Date of decision : 08-05-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/257/1988 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
643  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs M. BHASKAR AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 358
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA,S.B. MAJMUDAR
was promoted as Commercial Inspector Grade-II by an order dated 21.9.1989 effective from 11.10.1988 but was denied promotion to Grade-I although he had 2 years D of experience in _Grade-II as on 11.10.1990. The respondents tiled a petition before the central administrative tribunal for higher date of the actual promotion. [367-D-E] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5410 of C 1992 Etc. Etc. From the Judgment and Order 7.8.92 of the central administrative tribunal at Bangalore in 0 .A. No. 69 of 1991. P.P. Malhotra, AK. Sharma, S.A. Matto, Hemant Sharma, A.D.N. D Rao
Date of decision : 06-05-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5410/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
644C.S. BALAN AND ORS. Vs CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 65
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,B.L. HANSARIA
into that questio11-011ly orderi11g that seniority be given-Matter remitted to Tribunal for considering the claim of appella11ts to get promotion from earlier date. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 8907/96. D From the Judgment and order dated 28.11.94/2.12.94 of Central Administrative Tribunal , Ernakulam in O.A. No. 1327/93. G. Prakash for the Appellants. V.R. Reddy, Additional Solicitor General, Hemanshu Sharma and E C.V.S. Rao for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The
Date of decision : 26-04-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8907/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
645DHANNA RAM Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 564
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
, H.P. Sharma, A. Bhasme and K. Swami for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. Heard learned counsel on both sides. This appeal by special leave arises from the Order of the central administrative tribunal at Chandigarh made in 0.A. No. 308 of 1994
Date of decision : 18-04-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7536/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
646  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs P.S. DHILLON – [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 234
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
). Thereupon the order for compulsory retirement of the respondent was passed. The respondent filed an application before the central administrative tribunal challenging the said order of compulsory retirement. The Tribunal allowed the application on the grounds that after B c the respondent’s considered by the Senior Selection Board and the said Board should have sent the same to the ACC with its recommendations, the central administrative tribunal has failed to note that the Senior Selection Board has no role to play at the stage of review in respect of officers of the rank of G
Date of decision : 12-04-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3806/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
647  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DR. H. MUKHERJEE Vs S.K. BHARGAWA – [1996] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 123
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,S.C. SEN
the said suit in view of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (the Act) and the constitution of the central administrative tribunal thereunder to adjudi- cate disputes relating to service conditions of the government servants. The defendant submitted that, if at all, such a suit can be- matter of the suit does not fall with;n the jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal created under the Act. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal – which order is challenged in this appeal. The only contention urged by the defendant before the Civil Court – and which reiterated before the
Date of decision : 09-04-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6973/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
648  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
MILLS DOUGLAS MICHAEL AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1077
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.B. PATTANAIK
. The appellant challenged the afore-said cancellation before the H 1077 1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 3 S.C.R. A central administrative tribunal , which was dismissed. Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s judgment the appellant preferred the present appeal. B On behalf of the appellant it man who is not a graduate can be deemed to be graduate on completion of 15 years of service in the Armed Forces. In the first case which arose out of the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (Original Application No. 658 of 1994) the Tribunal came to the conclusion
Date of decision : 02-04-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5333/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
649UNION OF lNDIA AND ORS. Vs DHARMA PAL AND ORS. ETC. – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 1056
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
year prior to the date of filing of the application in the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. The appellants are directed to pay the same within a period of four months from to-day. The appeals arc accordingly disposed of. No costs . R.P. Appeals are disposed of.
Date of decision : 29-03-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7062/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
650  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
RAMANAND PRASAD SINGH AND ANR ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 964
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
years 1991-92and1992-93 (110 such ollicers) were included. The total number of ollicers, therefore, considered by the Selec- r \ ·’ tion Committee were 153+1+110, that is to say, 264. The selections were :,. set aside by the central administrative tribunal , Patna holding that (i) only three. MANOHAR, J. Leave Granted. The appellants have challenged the judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench, Patna dated 28th of July, 1995 as a result of which the Tribunal has set aside the selection made of . the .Selection Committee on 30th of March, 1994 of officer
Date of decision : 27-03-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5123/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
651CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH AND ORS. Vs AJAY MANCHANDA ETC. – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 918
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,K.S. PARIPOORNAN
acts and deeds of the two respondents herein did call for the exercise of the extraordinary power under proviso (b) to Article 311(2) which it did invoke. It says that the central administrative tribunal , Chan­ digarh was in error in interdicting its orders dismissing the respondents. B Ajay.” ,’!: -‘)!””” ‘ . ‘ . : ” ¥ ! ‘ . : _. ;.,_.. . – ~ . . . . • . , F The respondent challenged the order of dismissal before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. The Tribunal f~und that the im­ pug;,elo~der does ‘~ot. state that th; respondent’ had’given any threats to any of the iitnesse; or
Date of decision : 26-03-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6954/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
652BALBIR SINGH NEG! Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 868
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
ftled against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Circuit at Shimla made on 17.11.1995 in O.A. No. 758/HP/91. The petitioner, admittedly, after completing his 33 years of qualifying service submitted, on February 18, 1991, an application for voluntary retirement
Date of decision : 25-03-1996 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/5655/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
653SMT. ANURADHA MUKHERJEE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 276
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
graduate Clerks Grade II. H The present appeals were filed against the judgments of various 276 )- A. MUKHERJEEv. U.0.1. 277 Benches of central administrative tribunal in the cases arising out of A disputes regarding claim to seniori1y and emoluments in Clerk Grade-I of ._.· A in service the employees and by the Union of India, arise from the orders of Calcutta, Allahabad New G Delhi and Lucknow Benches of the central administrative tribunal . The facts in the main appeal filed by Mrs. Anuradha Mukherjee, are sufficient for disposal of the controversy raised in all these
Date of decision : 12-03-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4265/1996 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
654NAVNEET RAJAN WASAN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS . – [1996] 3 S.C.R. 259
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,M.K. MUKHERJEE
appeals have been heard together as they arise out of a common judgment rendered by the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad (‘Tribunal’ for short) disposing of two original applications (O.A. Nos. 823 of 1992 and 919 of 1992). Facts relevant for disposal of these appeals are as under : C
Date of decision : 12-03-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4226/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
655UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs K.V. VIJEESH – [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1077
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M.K. MUKHERJEE,K. VENKATASWAMI
filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , Er­ nakulam, contending inter alia, that even though in the select list his i’ank C was 172 he had not been given appointment but persons lower in rank were appointed. Accordingly, he prayed for necessary directions for his appoint­
Date of decision : 27-02-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4032/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
656UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs MOTI LAL AND ORS. – [1996] 2 S.C.R. 727
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A v. MOTi LAL AND ORS. FEBRUARY 15, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PAITANAIK, JJ.] B SelVice Lllw : Railway-Class III post-Appointment of casual Mat~egularisation of-Orders by the central administrative tribunal -On appeal, held : it is not C pennissible to appoint Sunder Sharma, Anis Suhrawardy, Mrs. Shamama Anis and Zalli Ahmed Khan for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G Delay condoned. Leave granted. These appeals by the Union of India are directed against the orders passed by the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad
Date of decision : 15-02-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3619/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
657P.S. SAWHNEY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] 2 S.C.R. 258
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
-person. Mrs. Kanwaljit Kochar and Ms. Rani Chhabra for the Respondents. F The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench made in O.A. No. 857/CH/89 on December 13, 1991. The Tribunal
Date of decision : 07-02-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1525/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
658  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.C. DHINGRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] 2 S.C.R. 132
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
Governments has since been dispensed with effect from _1.4.i987.” When the appellant had .asked for proportionate pension computing the previous service, it was denied to him. Consequently, he filed O.A. No. 2335/89 in the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi. By order dated 19.10.1994, it was
Date of decision : 05-02-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3371/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
659VISAKHAPATNAM DOCK LABOUR BOARD. Vs E. ATCHANNA AND ORS. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1126
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
date of birth in service record was not correct and that central administrative tribunal committed an error in issuing the direction to correct his date of birth. This Court has further observed as under : ….. It is open to a civil servant to claim correction of his date H 1130 A B c
Date of decision : 02-02-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2599/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
660THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, ABMEDABAD AND ORS. Vs V.G. DESAI AND ANR. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1132
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.T. NANAVATI
A B c D E F G H THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELEPHONES, ABMEDABAD AND ORS. v. V.G. DESAI AND ANR. FEBRUARY 1, 1996 [S.C. AGRAWAL AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.] Constitution of India-Article 136–Appeal by special leave:- Scope:-Jurisdiction to interfere with orders of Central Administrative Tribunal -Court does not inteifere on individual disputes-When pensionary benefits granted to an employee which were not available to him in law-Mat- ter calls for inteiference of this Court under Art. 136. Service Law-Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules,_ 1972-Rule 48(A) inserted by central administrative tribunal . Allowing the application, the Tribunal by its order dated 30.11.1987 directed the authorities to decide the qnestion of releasing GPF leave salary and other dues of the petitioner within a period of two months that an interest of 9% should be payable on such dues central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad in R.A.No. 43/93/0.A.No. 313 of B c 1989. ]) Ashok Mathur for the Appellant in C.A.No. 2570/96. Raju Ramachandran, Sukumar Pattjoshi and Rajeev Kumar Singh for the Appellant in C.A.No. 2571/96. Narayan B. Shetye, B.N. Patel and S.C. Patel for the
Date of decision : 01-02-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2570/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
661MS. SAVITA SAMVEDI AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 1046
Judge Name: M.M. PUNCHHI,K. VENKATASWAMI
regularisation of railway <1uarter. Representation of appellant no. 2 was also rejected. The appel­ lants after being unsuccessful before the central administrative tribunal , H filed the present appeal. 1046 ‘ …… SAVITASAMVEDI v. U.0.1. 1047 The respondents relied upon the Railway Board Railway Circular on the subject. Both the appellants then took the matter to the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi but without any success. They havo thus knocked the doors of this Court for appropriate relief. The respondents in defence rely upon the Railway Board
Date of decision : 30-01-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2441/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
662STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. Vs S. SUBRAMANIAM – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 968
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,G.B. PATTANAIK
finding lhat the charge has not been proved. The Tribunal is not a court of appeal. The power of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of D India was taken away by the power under Article 323A and invested the same on the Tribunal by central administrative tribunal Act
Date of decision : 24-01-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2864/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
663THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ADMINSITRATION) BANGALORE Vs V.K. GURURAJ AND ORS. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 841
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
for giant of special p~Those UDCs directed to handle cases of complex nature involving deep study and com­ petence-<Jrant of special pay to compensate discharge of such duties-{]DCs not actually discharging such special duties-Claiming special pay- central administrative tribunal directing payment
Date of decision : 22-01-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2537/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
664S. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND ORS. Vs STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 557
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,S.P. BHARUCHA
given in Divakar’s case were not put above the persons who were already in the list showing the organisation of orders or appointed pursuant to Special Test etc.’ These orders were challenged in these appeals. Allowing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1.1. The central administrative tribunal had
Date of decision : 16-01-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1809/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
665SMT. NUT.AN ARVIND Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 491
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,G.B. PATTANAIK
from the order dated December 22, 1994 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 1796 of 1989. We had issued notice to the respondents to show to this Court whether the consideration for promotion was on merit and ability or seniority-cum­ merit and what was
Date of decision : 15-01-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2546/1996 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
666  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs S.S. UPPAL AND ANR. – [1996] 1 S.C.R. 230
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,S.C. SEN
. Uppal, the respondent No. 1 herein, made an application before the A central administrative tribunal . Jabalpur, claiming that Rule 2 of the Amend­ ment Rules of 1989 was ultra vires and was hit by articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. He further contended that in any event he was due his seniority before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal was of the view that the question of vires of the amended rules need not be gone into in the facts of this case, because the question of determination of seniority in a case like this was concluded by the judgment of this
Date of decision : 09-01-1996 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1492/1996 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
667UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs B.N. SINGH AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 790
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
A B UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. B.N. SINGH AND ORS. DECEMBER 15, 1995 [K. RAM~SWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.) Constitution of India. Article 136-0rder of central administrative tribunal -Based on ser­ C vice record of employee-Held, not a case waTTanting inteiference. D The Union of
Date of decision : 15-12-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12075/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
668  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA (RAILWAY BOARD) AND OTHERS Vs J.V. SUBHAIAH AND OTHERS ETC. – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 812
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,FAIZAN UDDIN,B.N. KIRPAL
-operative Societies Act, 19M-He/d, not regular Railway C employees in Class Ill post. The respondents being employed in Railway Employees Consumer Cooperative Store registered under Andhra Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act’ 1964, tiled an application before central administrative tribunal seeking
Date of decision : 15-12-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12148/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
669  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs MRS. SAROJ BALA – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 656
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
AJJril 5, 1950. 111e University had rejected the same. The respondent then filed an application for correction of the date of birth which was rejected by the Government. Thereafter, the resJJondent filed a petition in the central administrative tribunal for correction of her date of birth. The respondent filed O.A. in the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh. By the impugned order dated 6.1.1992, the Tribunal held that the date of birth of the respondent is April 5, 1950 and directed correction of her date of birth in the service record within the time specified in the order
Date of decision : 13-12-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/12073/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
670  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF AND ANR. Vs G. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 360
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,G.T. NANAVATI
which he was regularised iu the post of Storekeeper. He made a representation to the Department claiming seniority by computing the period spent on ad hoc service as Storekeeper. The Department rejected the representation. The Respondent muved an application before the central administrative tribunal which the Court was delivered : Leave granted. E F Heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question which arises for consideration is whether or not the central administrative tribunal by the impugned judgment dated June 2.1994 passed in 0.A. No. 1507 of 1993 has correctly decided the
Date of decision : 08-12-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11923/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
671  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
MARY JOHNY Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 316
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench in OA No. 547/89. B The appellant is questioning her prom”‘ion and transfer from Door­ darshan to Akashwani. According to the e;ipellant, in the year 1976 when the Doordarshan Kendra was separated from All India Radio (A.LR.) [sound scheme], he had
Date of decision : 07-12-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11816/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
672UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs C.N. PONNAPPAN – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 220
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.B. PATTANAIK
: central administrative tribunal -One Bench not inclined to agree wiOi the view taken by another co-ordinate Bench-Course to be adopted-fu:­ D plained. On the question whether an employee, transferred from one unit to other on compassionate grounds and, as such, placed at the bottom of the seniority list, can have his service in the former unit counted as experience for the purpose of promotion in the latter unit, the Madras Bench of the E central administrative tribunal decided in favour of the transferred employee, whereas the Bangalore Bench decided against such an employee. Later, a
Date of decision : 05-12-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1221/1987 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
673YOGENDRA NARAYAN CHOWDHURY AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 17
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,S.B. MAJMUDAR
were also issued to recover the arrears paid to them. These orders were F challenged before different Benches of the central administrative tribunal . The Cuttack Bench upheld the reversion to semi skilled category but directed not to recover the arrears. On the other hand a Calcutta Bench of orders before different Benches of the central administrative tribunal . In • Y.N. CHOWDHURY v. U.0.1. 19 the Cuttack Bench, the same categories of persons filed 0 .A. 382/87. The A Tribunal held that they being unskilled are to be classified as semi-skilled since they had passed the test and
Date of decision : 30-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9312/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
674  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
P. BHASKARAN AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 625
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
ministrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Misc. A. No. 986 of 1988. B.K. Mehta, Jatin Jhaveri and H.J. Jhaveri for the Appellants. N.N. Goswami, Ms. Sushma Suri and Hemant Sharma, for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. The central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad
Date of decision : 23-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11560/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
675  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
VINOD KRISHNA KAUL, INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (RETIRED) Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 602
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,K. VENKATASWAMI
to him. Consequently recovery of the higher rent/damages from the appellant in accordance with clauses (3) and (4) was not justified. [606-B-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10500 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 2.3.94/16.3.94 of the central administrative tribunal , New Court. He thereafter moved the Delhi High Court challenging the amendment issued in the Notification dated 1.1.1976 B and the same was later on transferred to the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, which by the impugned order upheld the validity of the amendment and declined to interfere
Date of decision : 23-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10500/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
676  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs PRATIBHA BANERJEE AND ANR. – [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 511
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,K.S. PARIPOORNAN
Govemment and High Cowt Judge is not of master and servant-He is the holder of a constitutional office. C High Cowt Judges (Conditions of Service) Act, 1954-Pension admis­ sible to Vice-Chainnan of central administrative tribunal -Detennination of-Pensioner as High Court Judge appointed as Vice Chairman of Tribunal-Retirement-Fixation of pension under Part I of the First Schedule to the Act. D The first respondent was appointed Judge of High Court of Calcutta. She retired as such w.e.f. 16.2.1989 and was appointed as Vice-Chairman of the central administrative tribunal on 3.3.1989. On
Date of decision : 21-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6020/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
677PRABHAVATI DEVI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 421
Judge Name: M.M. PUNCHHI,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
, E denied to her the family pension. Being unsuccessful before the central administrative tribunal , she filed the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The Tribunal was not right in dismissing the claim of F family pension to the wife and children of the deceased. It
Date of decision : 16-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/10492/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
678  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SURESH C. BASKEY AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 152
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
account notionally the element of house rent allowance. F Following its earlier decision in O.A. No. 13 of 1987 decided on April 17, 1990 the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta answered the ques­ tion in favour of the employees. Accordingly, it directed the respondents to implement. 1837/91 This appeal is directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench dated Sep­ tember 6, 1990 in 0.A. No. 983/90. The Tribunal in turn relied upon its earlier judgment in O.A. No. 13/87 decided on September 1, 1989 .. Special Leave Petition against the
Date of decision : 13-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1837/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
679SMT. SUDHA SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 797
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S. SAGHIR AHMAD,B.N. KIRPAL
against conviction–Legal . heir permitted to continue proceedings-{]/timately conviction set asid~ Legal heir’s claim for retrospective promotion and consequential monetary D benefits to deceased rejected by Government and central administrative tribunal , Held, right to get benefits due to a pendency of the proceedings, the respondent had agreed to an order dated 29.6.1984, being passed by the central administrative tribunal , whereby, as a special case, an amount of Rs. 90,000 was allowed to the appellant towards the expenses incurred by the deceased in connection with the criminal
Date of decision : 08-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9949/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
680  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs G.K. VAIDYANATHAN AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 718
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,B.L. HANSARIA
central administrative tribunal (Madras Bench) in Original Application No. 731 of 1981 whereas Civil Appeal arising from Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3930 of 1988 is preferred against an order of the Central Ad­ ministrative Tribunal (Bangalore Bench) in Original Application No. 380 of 1987
Date of decision : 02-11-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4340/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
681  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. Vs S. BALASUBRAMANAM AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 567
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
this G.0. was also challenged before the High Court, which dismissed the writ petitions and the appeal as having become infructuous. In respect of the writ petition involving G.O. Ms. No. 660 the petitioners were given liberty to approach the central administrative tribunal . Accordingly, the
Date of decision : 31-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1093/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
682GOPALAKRISHAN AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 608
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.N. KIRPAL
the promoted Head Clerks Chief Clerks with effect from 1.9.1985 but without arrears. The central administrative tribunal also held that the persons who had not been paid the special pa:’ from 11.7.1979 till 31.8.1985 would also be entitled to the said special pay, but they were not entitled to the arrears. The appellants who retired prior F G to 1.9.1985, claimed that they were entitled to step up their pay by including Rs. 35 per month for purpose of calculating the pension. Their claim was rejected by the Department as also by the central administrative tribunal . Aggrieved
Date of decision : 31-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1423/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
683UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs M. BHASKARAN, ETC. ETC. – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 526
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,S.B. MAJMUDAR
the basis of bogus and forged casual labourer se1Vice cards–Fraud detected by Railway authorities-Orders of removal from service passed- central administrative tribunal ordering reinstatement of the employees-On appeal held-Even independently of the Rule such D fraudulently obtained dragged on for number of years. Earlier removal orders of the respondents were set aside by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench and proceedings were ren1andcd and after remand fresh removal orders were passed by the appellant which has been set aside by the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam
Date of decision : 30-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9636/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
684STATE OF ASSAM Vs P.C. MISHRA, l.A.S. AND ORS. ETC – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 515
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,K. VENKATASWAMI
dated 8.9.1992 confirmed the earlier order dated 10.10.9L Respondent No. l challenged the orders before the central administrative tribunal , which quashed both the orders passed by the State Government and made adverse remarks against the Chief Secretary, respondent no. 2. Aggrieved, the State
Date of decision : 20-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9560/1995 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
685  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
KRISHAN PRASAD GUPTA Vs CONTROLLER, PRINTING AND STATIONERY – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 436
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S. SAGHIR AHMAD
T1ibu11af-(l) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the central administrative tribunal shall exercise, on and from the appointed day, all the .iurisdiction, powers and authority exer­ cisable immediately before that day by all courts (except the supreme Court) in relation to – (a jurisdiction of such Tribunal, and no appeal has been preferred against such decree or order before such establishment and the time for preferring such appeal under any law for the time being in force had not expired before such establishment, such appeal shall lie- (a) to the central administrative tribunal , within
Date of decision : 18-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1980/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
686  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
O.S. SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 261
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,G.B. PATTANAIK
before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench. B The Tribunal, relying on R 3(3) (b), of the Seniority Rules, held that the year of allotment must be related to continuous ofliciation of’ the junior most ollicer in a senior post from a date earlier than the Appellant. Since judgment dated A 24.5.93 of the central administrative tribunal in 0.A. No. 479/86, one at the instance of Union of India and the other at the instance of an employee Shri 0.S. Singh. Perennial dispute of determining inter se seniority be­ tween a direct recruit and a promotee in the Indian Police
Date of decision : 12-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9337/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
687  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. Vs VIRPAL SINGH CHAUHAN ETC. – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 158
Judge Name:
sought to be ·reverted back to grade ‘A’ and candidates from Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes who were junior to them in grade ‘A’ were sought to be promoted against the vacancies in E grade ‘A’ special. This was challenged by the general category candidates. The central administrative tribunal allowed the reserved category candidates. Fur interview for proniotion to the posts which were vacant, the Railway Authorities sought to call the Scheduled Cas­ tes/Scheduled Tribes candidates junior to ‘X’. ‘X’ challenged this and D succeeded before the central administrative tribunal . FACTS OF CIVIL
Date of decision : 10-10-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9272/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
688SH. HUKAM CHAND KHUNDIA Vs CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ANR. – [1995] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 146
Judge Name: G.N. RAY,G.T. NANAVATI
order terminating his services was passed without conducting an enquiry. The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this order before the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi. In appeal to this Court it was contended that the termination order E which was in fact by way of punishment, was chal­ lenged by filing an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi. Such application has been dismissed by the impugned order. The applicant B c was appointed as a temporary clerk by the District and Sessions
Date of decision : 09-10-1995 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/6503/1986 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
689  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. Vs KALICHARAN MOHAPATRA AND ANR. – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 836
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,M.K. MUKHERJEE
. Respondent approached the central administrative tribunal . ; The appellants relied on Rule 6 of the All India Services (Death-cum- Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958, in support of their action. The Tribunal held that there was no justification in withholding the gratuity amount as also in not
Date of decision : 20-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8400/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
690  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
AP. SRIVASTAVA (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 826
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,G.B. PATTANAIK
1.12.1980 and departmental proceeding was initiated on 10.4.1981. An order of punish­ ment was passed on 1.6.1985. Since the appeal against it was not disposed of the appellant approached the central administrative tribunal on 15.1.1987. While the proceedings were pending before the Tribunal, the E of Home Affairs issued an order pre-maturely retiring the appellant under Rule 56(J)(ii) of E the Fundamental Rules on 26.02.1988 making it effective from 01.03.1988. This order· was challenged by the appellant against before the central administrative tribunal which was heard on 31.01.1991
Date of decision : 20-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8409/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
691SAWAN RAM MALRA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 608
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,S.P. BHARUCHA
the final ‘merit list’ containing names of 10 ollicers. He was informed that he being a general line ollicial in Railway Mail Service, was not eligible for promotion against 6% posts. The appellant moved the central administrative tribunal , which rejected his claim on the ground that in view of eligible for promotion against 6% posts. The appellant thereupon moved the central administrative tribunal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’]. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment dated January 19, 1994, has dismissed the said application of the appellant. The Tribunal has upheld D the
Date of decision : 13-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8235/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
692KARNATAKA STATE GOVERNMENT FIRST GRADE COLLEGES PART-TIME LECTURERS’ ASSOCIATION Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 532
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
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
Date of decision : 11-09-1995 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/21/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
693  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs AJOY KUMAR PATNAIK – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 449
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
the order before the central administrative tribunal , which set aside the order holding that in the absence of entry in Character Rolls of “doubtful integrity”, the instances cited should not be taken into considera- tion in compulsorily retiring the respondent from service. Aggrieved, the State from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench dated July 19, 1991 made in O.A D E F No. 425 of 1986. The respondent’s case, while working as Collector of Customs (Appeals) at Bombay, after completing 50 years of service, had come up before a screening committee
Date of decision : 08-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8371/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
694RAM KISHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 251
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
not be taken to have been proved. The appellant submitted his explanation and thereon by order dated September 6, 1986, the Additional Deputy Commissioner dismissed him from· service. After unsuccessful appeal and revision, he approached the central administrative tribunal in May, 1986. The
Date of decision : 01-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8325/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
695HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, SHIMLA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs TIRATH RAJ AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 248
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
typists workmg under the Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Gwalior. They contended that under s.14 of the Act, all the jurisdiction, power and authority exercisable by all courts excepting the Supreme Court have been vested in the central administrative tribunal . Therefore, it
Date of decision : 01-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8086/1995 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
696K. KANDASWAMY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 258
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
integrity as such could 258 K. KANDASWAMYv. U.O.I. 259 not be certified. The report ultimately led to passing the order to compul- A sorily retire the appellant. The appellant challenged the order before the central administrative tribunal , which declined to interfere. Aggrieved, the appellant Leave granted. This appeal by special leave arises from the order dated November 19, 1990 made in O.A. No. 641/88 by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench. Undisputed facts are that the appellant is an 1.P.S. direct recruit cadre officer (1966) in the Tamil Nadu Police Service. At
Date of decision : 01-09-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8336/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
697  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs BHAGWAN SINGH – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 155
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,K.S. PARIPOORNAN
12.09.1972 leaving behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent who was a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent sought appointment on compassionate grounds which was rejected by the railways. The respondent challenged the order of the Railways before the central administrative tribunal which Sushil Kumar for the Respondent The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PARIPOORNAN, J. Delay condoned. Leave granted. H The Union of India, respondent in O.A. No. 204/92 before the U.0.1. v. BHAGWANSINGH(PARIPOORNAN,J.] 157 central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur and the Railway
Date of decision : 30-08-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7813/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
698  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs N.V. PHANNENDRAN – [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 141
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
auth01ity. A B c The respondent challenged his removal from service before the central administrative tribunal on the ground that the Divisional Rail- D way Manager was not the appointing authority and therefore he was not competent to impose the punishment of removal from service. Accepting contention raised before the central administrative tribunal was that the Divisional Railway Manger, Railways, was not ap- B pointing authority. Therefore, he was not competent to impose the punish­ ment of removal from service. That found favour with the Tribunal. Accordingly the order of removal
Date of decision : 29-08-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8116/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
699  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.R. GUPTA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 852
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,K. VENKATASWAMI
rejected before coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Later on 4.9.1989, the appellant, filed an application before the central administrative tribunal which dismissed the claim as time barred. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special leave. Allowing the appeal
Date of decision : 21-08-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7510/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
700UNION OF INDIA Vs S.B. MISRA – [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 704
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
central administrative tribunal , the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to him consequent upon a departmen­ tal inquiry, as invalid for non-supply of the copy of the inquiry report. The ·tribunal set aside the order giving liberty to the department to proceed with the case from the stage of
Date of decision : 14-08-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7756/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
701UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. Vs SHRI DEBASHIS KAR AND OTHERS ETC. – [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 272
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,S. SAGHIR AHMAD
~he central administrative tribunal in Calcutta Jabalpur and Hyderabad, by the respondents seeking the im­ plementation of the O.M. dated 13.3.1984. By their judgments the various Benches of the Tribunal t9ok the view that the qualifications required for the appointment of draughtsmen in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by draughtsmen employed in the Ordinance Factories situated in that State and after the constitution of the central administrative tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the said writ petition was transferred to the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal and it was registered as TAA
Date of decision : 20-07-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1433/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
702SARWAN SINGH LAMBA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 427
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,J.S. VERMA,P.B. SAWANT,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,N.P. SINGH
sultation with the Chief Justice of India. In a snbsequent Order in S.P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India, [1987) Supp. SCC 734 (‘S.P. Sampath D Kumar II’), this Court opined that in case of recruitment to the central administrative tribunal , the committee was to be headed by a sitting Supreme Court by an order dated 5.5.1987 reported in [1987] Supp. SCC 734. The Court ordered: “Having considered the matter carefully we are of the opinion that in the case of recruitment to the central administrative tribunal B c D the appropriate course would be to appoint a High Powered Selection
Date of decision : 12-05-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5061/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
703SATPAL ANTIL AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1995] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: P.B. SAWANT,G.N. RAY
) of his circle. The names of the G appellants. had been shown respectively at Serial Nos. 20 and 27 in the Seniority List. They challenged the said seniority list before the central administrative tribunal which was repelled. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal the appellants preferred the making ad hoc promotions to the post of Assistant Engineer without holding the DPC by the Depart­ ment for regular promotion. It appears that vide its Order dated ‘.’lovember 4, 1988 in 0.A.No. 359 of 1987 the central administrative tribunal directed the; respondents to convene the DPC for the
Date of decision : 05-05-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5383/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
704SHREEDHARAN KALLAT Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 828
Judge Name: R.M. SAHAI,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
consequently his seniority was fixed from 1963. Later some direct recruits, who were not affected by fixation of appellant’s seniority, filed applications before the central administrative tribunal . In the proceed· .. ings before the Tribunal not only the Railways raked up the same con· troversy
Date of decision : 26-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3565/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
705SH. NARAYAN YESHWANT GORE Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 803
Judge Name: R.M. SAHAI,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
. A.N. Jay Ram, Additional Solicitor General, C.V. Subba Rao, T.C. Sharma and Ms. Sushma Suri for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : This appeal is directed agaiost the order passed by the central administrative tribunal rejecting the petition filed by the
Date of decision : 26-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2896/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
706VINOD KUMAR SANGAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 734
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,S. SAGHIR AHMAD
28th February 1985. The writ petition filed by the appellant in the High Court to challenge the Order dated 28th February, 1985 for his reversion, was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , which dismissed the same. Aggrieved, the appellant filed the appeal by special G leave. It a Writ Petition (Writ Petition No. 395 of 1985) in the High Court at Bombay, Nagpur Bench. The said Writ Petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Bombay Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) and it was registered as Transfer Petition No. 343 of 1987. D
Date of decision : 25-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4721/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
707A.K. KAUL AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 469
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,FAIZAN UDDIN
of the respondents was malafide and was directed to penalise and victimise the appellants for .A.. promoting and participating in the activities of the IBEA. The said Writ Petitions were subsequently tra’lsferred to the central administrative tribunal , under the Administrative Tribunals Act. 205-207/81] in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution to challenge the said orders of dismissal. After the constitution of the central administrative tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) the said writ petitions were
Date of decision : 19-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4495/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
708RAJANNA Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 524
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
appellant then filed OA. No. 2284 of 1992 before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi for recovery of his claim of -,x-gratia payment of Rs. 50,000. The claim was contested on the B ground that the injuries resulting in the permanent partial disablement of the appeallant
Date of decision : 19-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4584/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
709UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs DR. DEVENDRA VIR SAHI – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 426
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
respondent. 1 · The respondent challenged the termination of his services before the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Bench. The Tribunal by its impugned judgment and order has held that the respondent should have been considered for regularisation only on the basis of his Confidential (supra). The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the order of the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Bench is set aside. In the circumstan­ ces, however, there will be no order as to costs. G.N. Appeal allowed.
Date of decision : 18-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4470/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
710SH. JAI KISHAN Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR. – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 268
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
service was a condltlon precedent to continue as a member of Delhi Police Service. The appellant continued In service upto September 14, 1988 and on that date an order was passed under Rule S(e) terminating his services. He unsuccessfully questioned the termination order befm:”e the Central Administrative Tribunal . Against the decision of the Tribunal, an appeal was preferred to this Court. F The respondent’s case was that appellant’s retention in service was not considered desirable for the dlsclpllne or the police force because he was found to be a habitual absentee and Incorrigible
Date of decision : 10-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5210/1995 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : appeal Dismissed
711V.CHARULATHA AND OTHERS Vs S. GUNALAN, CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY RECRUITMENT BOARD, MADRAS AND ORS. – [1995] 3 S.C.R. 140
Judge Name: R.M. SAHAI,S.B. MAJMUDAR
the central administrative tribunal held that the Railway Recruit- G ment Board was entitled to conduct the second written examination in respect of those candidates who had been declared eligible for interview. It further held that the marks obtained in the first written examination as well as
Date of decision : 04-04-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2577/1991 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
712R.R.S. CHOUHAN AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1158
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
?r of H allotment for the purpose of seniority in the Service. The appellants moved 1158 I / R.R.S. CHOUHAN v. U.0.L 1159 an application before the central administrative tribunal claiming that A they should have been given 1971 as the year of allotment for the purpose of senioritY, on by S.C. AGRAWAL, J. In this appeal from the judgment dated August 9, 1988 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur Bench, Madhya Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’) the question B that arises for consideration is whether for the purpose of determination C of
Date of decision : 28-03-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/68/1989 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
713R.S. MIITAL Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1127
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
application before the central administrative tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him on the basis of 1988 panel. The Tribunal dismissed the application holding that the preparation of panel does not clothe the applicant with any right of appointment; the recommendations of, 1990 inviting applications E for the same post. The appellant filed Original Application before the central administrative tribunal seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as Judicial Member, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the select-panel prepared by the Selection
Date of decision : 27-03-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5155/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
714UNION Of INDIA AND ORS. Vs RAJ KUMAR GUPTA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1000
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
different orders of the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow Bench in O.A. No. 115/90 and batch. Pursuant to an advertisement for direct recruitment to the posts of Accounts Clerks Grade I, the respondents applied for and appeared in written examination as well as interview and were selected and
Date of decision : 23-03-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4480/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
715P. SHESHADRI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 621
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,FAIZAN UDDIN
promotion to the next grade of Deputy Director/Executive Engineer. His name was included in the panel of sel~d candidates and was placed at SI.No. 26 in the combined lisL Persons at sl.no.1 to 22 In the panel were promoted and the appellant was not promoted. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal claim· E ing that since 22 persons were promoted, adeast there could be one Roster point belonging to Scheduled Tribe candidate against which he could have been promoted. / / . ,/ The Respondents contested the appellant’s-‘lipplication by stating . F that 75 vacancies were. 3. In this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 31.7.1992 passed by the G central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench· at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dismissing the application of the appellant filed
Date of decision : 09-03-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3265/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
716UNION OF INDIA Vs DINESH KUMAR SAXENA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 341
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
, / Some of the affected employees in the Census Department made an application in 1992 before the central administrative tribunal for their re-employment/absorption/adjustment in t~e Census Department or in any other Government Department. The Tribunal_ directed the Union of C India to Administra- \ I ~ U.01. v. D.K.SAXENA[MRS.SUJATA V.MANOHAR,J.] 347 tive Tribunal. The Lucknow Bench of the central administrative tribunal , A I by its order dated 26.2.1993, directed the respondents to frame a scheme I for giving regular appointments to 900 and odd employees who had been
Date of decision : 24-02-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/731/1994 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
717UNION. OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs EXECUTIVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION GROUP C – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 276
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,FAIZAN UDDIN
. Leave granted. The counsel for parties are heard. 3. This appeal has been directed’ by the appellants aginst the judg- ment dated May 28, 1993 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 172 of 1972. By the said judgment the
Date of decision : 23-02-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3034/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
718THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH Vs DR. K. NARAYANASWAMI AND ORS. – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 142
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,B.L. HANSARIA
departments of the Government of India he retired oli superannuation on 31.12.1992. He H filed an application before the central administrative tribunal for. a 142 ‘ C.S.l.R. v. K. NARA YANASWAMI 143 direction that his service as Pool Officer rendered in the Council from A 1.7.1965 to joined as Principal B Scientific Officer in the Department of Science and Technology to be transferred in 1986 to the Department of Bio-Technology. He retired on superannuation on 31.12.1992. 3. What led the respondent to approach the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi was that his
Date of decision : 21-02-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2567/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
719UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs KANTILAL HEMATRAM PANDYA – [1995] 2 S.C.R. 71
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,M.K. MUKHERJEE
1992. He challenged the order before the central administrative tribunal . Quash- E log the order, the Tribunal directed that either the General Manager or his delegate, the Chief Personnel Officer of the Railway Administration should inform the respondent about the documents with copies thereof on-D-EJ G Union of India v. Ham.am Singh, [1993) 2 sec, 162, relied OD and applied. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1733 of 1995. H 74 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] 2 S.C.R. A · From the J\Idgment and Order dated 30.9.93/6.10.93 of the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad
Date of decision : 14-02-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1733/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
720UNION OF INDIA Vs D. MOHAN AND ORS. – [1995] 1 S.C.R. 747
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,FAIZAN UDDIN
transferred from Hyderabad Telecom District to the Telangana District of Andhra Pradesh Telecom Circle. The respondents challenged the transfers before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal set aside the orders holding that having regard to the instructions dated 19.9.1986 F issued, the appellants have challenged the order dated 20.8.1993 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad in Original Application No. 765/1993 file~ by the sixteen resp~mdents herein questioning the order dated 26.5.1993 whereby they were transferred from Hyderabad
Date of decision : 01-02-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1250/1995 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed
721DIRECTOR, GENERAL OF ORDNANCE SERVICES AND ORS. Vs P.N. MALHOTRA – [1995] 1 S.C.R. 676
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,SUJATA V. MANOHAR
preferred by him was dismissed by appellate authority. The D . respondent challenged the order before. the central administrative tribunal on the ground that the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, wherender the disciplinary enquiry had been held, had no application to the respondent and, therefore, the entire
Date of decision : 30-01-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1110/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
722  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs B. RAMA MURTHY – [1995] 1 S.C.R. 665
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,B.L. HANSARIA
retired employees. Government of India’s Office Memorandum which treated half of the dearness pay as pay to compute retirement benefits was challenged by the respondent. The central administrative tribunal declared it to be ultra vires as offending Article 14 of the Constitution. A B c. No. 18(4)-EV/79 dated May 25, 1979 introduced in paragraph 3(iii) that half of the dearn~ss pay was treated as pay to compute retirement benefits. That came to be challenged by the. respondent in ·filing O.A. before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad. The Tribunal in the impugned
Date of decision : 27-01-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2986/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
723  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (TELECOM) N.E. TELECOM CIRCLE AND ANR. Vs SH. RAJENDRA CH. BHATTACHARJEE AND ORS. – [1995] 1 S.C.R. 360
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,FAIZAN UDDIN
the basis of the Central Government memorandum had acquired the right of a choice posting and as his choice station was Agartala he ~hould be posted there. The central administrative tribunal accepting the case of the respondent directed the Govt. to transfer the respondent from H Nagaland to by the aforesaid order of transfer the respondent No. 1 ap- proached the central administrative tribunal contending that he had served at Tuensang (Nagaland) as Assistant Engineer, Computer from c 24.10.1990 to 15.7.1993 and had thus completed tenure period of two years and, therefore, on the
Date of decision : 18-01-1995 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/834/1995 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
724UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs UPENDRA SINGH – [1994] 1 S.C.R. 1070
Judge Name: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,B.L. HANSARIA
charges framed no misconduct or i”egularity alleged c can be said to have been made out or charges are contrary to law. Administrative Tribunals ~ct, 1985: s.l’>- central administrative tribunal -Power of-Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Disciplinary proceedings against-Tribunal -. disciplinary authority or the inquiry officer. [1078-A, BJ Union of India and Ors. v: A.N. Saxena, [1992) 3 S.C.C. 124; relied G on. 1.2. The jurisdiction of the central administrative tribunal is akin to that of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the principles
Date of decision : 17-12-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7484/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
725UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs PRATAP SINGH AND ORS. ETC. – [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 626
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,S. MOHAN,N. VENKATACHALA
drawn D while in operation. The non entitled categories, therefore, are not entitled to claim the ration allowance. Under these circumstances the central administrative tribunal at Chandigarh was wholly unjustified in granting the benefit of free ration allowance to the respondents by its order dated May 18, 1992. E These appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
Date of decision : 14-12-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4931/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
726M.S. USMANI AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 572
Judge Name: R.M. SAHAI,N.P. SINGH
in these appeals directed against order of central administrative tribunal , Lucknow Bench, is whether the appellants who were selected and appointed by a competitive examination against I 0% quota reserved for graduates and were promoted even to a higher scale of pay could have been reverted subsequently, on B assumption that the entire process of selection and appointment was against the rules. Facts as they emerge from the order passed by the central administrative tribunal and the affidavits filed by the parties, more particularly the Railways, are narrated in brief. In 1968 the
Date of decision : 14-12-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9177/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
727UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs G. VASUDEVAN PILLAY AND ORS. ETC. ETC . – [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 405
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
Order dated 31.10.89 of the central administrative tribunal in Kerala in T.A.K. No. 404/87 420/87, 17/88 and C 388of1986. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, K.K. Venugopal, M.N. Krishnamani, N.N. Goswamy, P.P. Tripathi, K.V. Mohan, AK.Srivastava, B.S.Sehgal, A. Bhattacharjee, S.M. Hooda
Date of decision : 08-12-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3543/1990 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
728UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs SHRI HARISH CHANDER BHATIA AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 394
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
through the procedure of selection. The respondents (promotees) won their case for seniority before the central administrative tribunal , against which the Union of India preferred the present appeal. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that despite the appointments being under sub Appeal No. 2481 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3 .92 of the central administrative tribunal , in New Delhi in O.A. No. 300of1989. N.N. Goswamy, Hemant Sharma P.Parmeswaran, and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. G.D. Gupta, A.K. Mahajan, Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik and L.R
Date of decision : 08-12-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2481/1993 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
729L. CHANDRA KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 261
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S.B. MAJMUDAR
passed by the Chairman of the central administrative tribunal on December 18, 1991 which is in consonance with the same. It deserves notice that in Mahabal Ram’s case there was no challenge to the validity of sub-section (6), but the D same has been assailed here. · Shri Rama Jois, iu assailing
Date of decision : 02-12-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/481/1989 | Disposal Nature : Directions issued
730  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs N.P. DHAMANIA, – [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 628
Judge Name: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY,S. MOHAN
approved a panel of 54 officers for G Appointment to the Senior Administrative Grade ‘A’ Level Post of the ITS. The remaining five out of the select panel of 59 officers including the respondent were dropped. It was this exclusion which was challenged before the central administrative tribunal . H
Date of decision : 20-10-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1794/1988
731  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DIRECTOR, GENERAL RICE RESEARCH INSTITUTION, CUTTACK AND ANR. Vs SHRI KHETRA MOHAN DAS – [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 301
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY,R.M. SAHAI
Technician holding either a 3 years diploma or a bachelor’s degree in the relevant field should be fitted in Category II. Since the representation was not fruitful, F Respondent filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, whi.ch came to be transferred to the central administrative tribunal . The is A concerned. [309-B to DJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4729 of 1991. From the Judgment and Order 5.9.89 of the central administrative tribunal , Cultack in T.A. No. 6 of 1988. Ranjit Kumar and Ms. Binu Tamta for the Appellants. P .N. Misra for the Respondent. Y
Date of decision : 06-10-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4729/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
732SULEKH CHAND AND SALEK CHAND Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 119
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,N. VENKATACHALA
. Sangeeta Kumar for the Appellant. V.N. Ganpule, S.A. Matto and S.N. Terdol for the Respondents. The followiog Order of the Court was delivered : Leave granted. These appeals arise from the order of the central administrative tribunal in O.A. No. 1218/88 dated December 12, 1993. The appellant
Date of decision : 30-09-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7063/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
733CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION ETC. ETC. Vs K.K. JERATH – [1994] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 35
Judge Name: R.M. SAHAI,N.P. SINGH
1990 and the appellant wrote to the Punjab Government to send a panel of eligible candidates for filling up the post. A panel was sent, but none in the panel was found suitable. When a similar request was made again, the respondent filed a claim petition before the central administrative tribunal , and always to be filled by transfer or deputation from a Superintending Engineer of Punjab? These interesting questions arise in this appeal filed, primarily, by no one else than Chandigarh Administration G itself against the order of central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh
Date of decision : 27-09-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6312/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
734  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SAYED MUZAFFAR MIR – [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 729
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
and C.V. Subba Rao for the Appellants G The JudgmenLof the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J.”The central administrative tribunal , New Bombay Bench, was approached by the respondent seeking two declarations in the main that he voluntarily retired from service with effect from 22.10.1985 and
Date of decision : 20-09-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2620/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
735UNION OF INDIA Vs K. B. KHARE AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 393
Judge Name: S. MOHAN,M.K. MUKHERJEE
UNION OF INDIA v. KB. KHARE AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 12, 1994 {S. MOHAN AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.) ‘ central administrative tribunal (Salaries, Allowances and Conditions of Service of Chaimian, Vice-Chaimian and Members) Rules, 1985: A B Rule 8-Scope of~eld exhaustive in nature Rule 16–Scope and C applicability of. All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules 1985: Rule 8(5~eld inapplicable to a member of central administrative tribunal . CCS (Fixation of pay of re-employed pensioners) Order 1986–Ap- D plicability of~eld inapplicable to a member of Central
Date of decision : 12-09-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2137/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
736CHANDRA GUPTA, IFS Vs SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 370
Judge Name: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,S. MOHAN,A.S. ANAND
Appeal No. 5997 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.92 of the Central Ad­ ministrative Tribunal, Lucknow in R.0.A. No. 170/92. And Civil Appeal Nos. 5998-6000 of 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.92, 27.11.92 & 2.12.92 of the central administrative tribunal , Lucknow, accordingly, allow the appeal, set aside the order of the central administrative tribunal and modify the order of the State Government dated January 24, 1991 and direct that the appellant i.hall be treated in Selection Grade with effect from January 1, 1986 and he will be entitled to all other
Date of decision : 12-09-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5996/1994 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
737N.K. SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 772
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA
Statutes-Harmonious Construction-Rule 8 read with · Rule 1 of Tenure Ru/es:-Ordinary tenure on deputation of 5 years of JPS Officer-May not be in one Central Police Organisation but in all-Total 5 years· tenure. E Service law-Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985–Sections 14 & 22– Central Administrative Tribunal -Rejection of a/legation of ma/a fides without respondents’ reply-Improper. The appellant, N.K. singh an I.P.S. Officer of 1961 cadre, was serving as I.G., CID in Orissa, when he was placed on deputation to the Ministry F of Home Affairs for live years from where on 12.02.90 transfer, the G appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal . The a1~pellant challenged bis transfer on the grounds of: (1) ma/a fides attributed to the then Prim•’ Minister, Sh. Cbandrashekhar; (2) being In contravention of the Tenure Rules regulating the period appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal on 25.3.1991 challenging his transfer on certain grounds. The Tribunal has dismissed that application, by the impugned order dated 5.4.1991. Hence this appeal by special leave. D There is no dispute that the impugned
Date of decision : 25-08-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4656/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
738NAROITAM DAS BESHITO/B.P. DOBHAL Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 670
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
petitioners could be said to be members of the “armed forces” or they had to be taken as civilians and whether central administrative tribunal bad·· jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter relating to the promotion of the two petitioners. Dismissing the writ petition, this Court HELD : 1.1 Section 2 Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by HANSARIA, J. The only point for decision in these petitions under ARticle 32 of the Constitution is whether the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter the Tribunal) has jurisdiction to adjudicate the mat- E F ter relating to
Date of decision : 16-08-1994 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/687/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
739BHAGWAN SHUKLA S/0 SH. SARABJIT SHUKLA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 419
Judge Name: A.S. ANAND,FAIZAN UDDIN
sought to be refixed and during the refixation his basic pay was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. from Rs. 190 p.m. w.e.f. 18.12.1970. The appellant questioned the order reducing his basic pay with retrospective effect frorr. 18.12.1970 before the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench. The central administrative tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of the appellant. The order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the central administrative tribunal dated G 17.9.1993 as well as the order (memorandum
Date of decision : 05-08-1994 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/5447/1994
740  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SHRI T. SHAM BHAT Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 358
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,N. VENKATACHALA
they completed 12 years of continuous service in substantive gazetted posts. The appellant challenged the constitutionality of Regulation 2 of the !AS Second Amendment Regulations before the central administrative tribunal as being inhibited by Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The for the Appellants. M. Yeerappa for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ‘ VENKATACHALA, J. In this appeal by special leave directed against an Order dated 26.7.1993 made in Application No. 230 of 1993 by the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore – ‘the Tribunal
Date of decision : 29-07-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/106/1994
741  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DIRECTOR, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KESARAGOD AND ORS. Vs M. PURUSHOTHAMAN AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 267
Judge Name: P.B. SAWANT,M.K. MUKHERJEE
quarters, D the appellant denied them the benefit or House Rent Allowance. This was challenged by the respondents berore the High Court _and the petitions were subsequently transrerred to the central administrative tribunal , and E it held that the employees cannot be compelled to occupy official respondent­ employees challenged these orders before the High Court. Their writ petitions were subsequently transferred to the central administrative tribunal and the Tribunal by the impugned common decision dated 5.5.1988, held that the employees cannot be compelled to occupy the official quarters and
Date of decision : 26-07-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/885/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
742  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SURENDRA MOHAN ARORA AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 79
Judge Name: M.N. VENKATACHALIAH,R.M. SAHAI,S. MOHAN
par with the diploma holders. That was allowed and it was held that they should be deemed to have been appointed as Snpervisor Grade ‘A’ from the date of their initial appointments. On 30th June 1987, the central administrative tribunal in the matter of one B.H. Ananthamurthy & Ors. directed that
Date of decision : 22-07-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4858/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
743  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs SH. RAJIV YADAV, IAS AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 30
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
-Valid-No obligation on Government to notify the principles of Cadre allocation. The respondent, an IAS Officer of the 1989 batch, was allocated to the Manlpur and Tripura cadre. He challenged this order before the D central administrative tribunal on the ground that the reservation for scheduled- centage has been provided in direct recruitment to the !AS. This reserva- tion in the process of allocation was challenged by Rajiv Yadav, respondent H 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A in the appeal herein, before the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi (the tribunal). A
Date of decision : 21-07-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3542/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
744  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs ANAND KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 750
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S. MOHAN
this order before central administrative tribunal , Calcutta which quashed it on the ground that it was passed in violation of natural justice and directed the appellants to make the appointments on the basis of penal prepared. Against the decision of the Tribunal, Union or India preferred to respondents to appear in a written examination once again was challenged by them before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated December 20, 1991 set aside the order of the appellants and directed the appellants to make the appoint­ ments on the
Date of decision : 18-07-1994 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/4828/1994
745UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs TUSHAR RANJAN MOHANTY – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 651
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S. MOHAN
reservation policy. Respondent 1 challenged the promotion of respondents 2 to 9 before the central administrative tribunal on the ground that the reservation, in respect of appointments to the service by promotion, was not permitted under the Rules. The Tribunal allowed the F application and held that instructions issued by B c the Government of India from time to time. Mohanty, being senior to D respondents 2 to 9 in Grade IV, challenged their promotions before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench, (the Tribunal) on the ground that under the reservation, in respect of
Date of decision : 14-07-1994 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/3844/1989 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
746  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CHANDER BHAN GILL Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 590
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,J.S. VERMA,R.M. SAHAI
Increment in the revised pay scale and the respondent rejected the same. Appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal having dis· G missed the application the appellant prefered the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The service Gill was granted annual increment in the eicisting scale (unrevised) His claim for grant of annual increment in the revised pay scale was rejected by the Government. Gill challenged the G action of the Government by way of an application before the central administrative tribunal , Principal
Date of decision : 14-07-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3958/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
747PRADUMAN KUMAR JAIN Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, NEW DEIHl AND ANR. – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 305
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Undertaking, on October 31, 1986 after being selected for appointment as a Senior Engineer. He approached the central administrative tribunal claiming pro rata pension for the E period of his service under the Central Government. The Tribunal rejected his claim on the ground that he was not a substantive question before the central administrative tribunal (the Tribunal) , New G Delhi was whether the appellant was entitled to pro rata persion for the period of his service under the Central Government. The Tribunal answered the question in the negative and rejected the claim of the appellant on the
Date of decision : 11-07-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4670/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
748TELECOMMUNICATION ENGG. SERVICE ASSOCIATION (INDIA) AND ORS. Vs U.O.I. – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 84
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
under para 206 of P & T Manual and not on basis of seniority-However, back wages payable only from date of actual working on higher post and not from date of notional promotion. The two questions which arose in these Special Leave Petitions and appeals by Special Leave from the Central Administrative Tribunal were D (1) Whether the applicants and persons similarly situated were entitled to promotion from the grade of Junior Engineers to the next higher grade in \he Telegraph Engineering Service Group B (Assistant Engineers and equivalent posts) on the basis of the year of passing the DAYAL, J. This Order will dispose of above said 58 matters. However, we are taking the facts from Special Leave Petition No. 16698 of 1992. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 29th June, 1992 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in Review
Date of decision : 13-05-1994 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/16698/1992 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
749SHRI A.K. NIGAM AND ORS. Vs SHRI SUNIL MISRA AND ANR. – [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 126
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
other Misc. Categories (“Principles”) which provided for weigbtage upto five years. Respondent No. 1 challenged the seniority given to the Appellants .over him by filing an application before the central administrative tribunal , Principal F Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal allowed the application c YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J. This is an appeal on behalf of appellants S/Shri AK. Nigam, K. Thiagarajan and Suresh Kumar against the judgment dated 5th March, 1993 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, in O.A No. 1422 of 1987 filed by respondent No. 1 Shri Sunil Misra
Date of decision : 13-05-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6037/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
750UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. Vs SUDHIR KUMAR JAISWAL – [1994] 3 S.C.R. 886
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.L. HANSARIA
August. Even after the E introduction of Preliminary Examination which is normally held before 1st August, the cut off date continued to be 1st August. The cut off date was challenged before the central administrative tribunal and the Tribunal held it to be arbitrary, though the same F
Date of decision : 04-05-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2347/1994
751THE NATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY Vs SHRI M.A. WAHAB – [1994] 3 S.C.R. 800
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,M.K. MUKHERJEE
findings of the Tribunal is borne out by the records, and hence cannot be sustained. [806-H] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3935-36 c of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.5.92 & 8.9.92 of the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench in 0.A. No. 243/91 & R.A. No. 17 central administrative tribunal Act, 1985 which cul­ minated in the impugned order dated May 20, 1992. An application preferred by the appellant for review of the above order was rejected. From the impugned order we find that the reasons which principally D weighed with the Tribunal in allowing the
Date of decision : 29-04-1994 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/3935/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
752SMT. INDRANI BAI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1994] 3 S.C.R. 608
Judge Name: K. RAMASWAMY,N. VENKATACHALA
filed an Application under the Administrative Tribunals Act • 1985 before the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur, which was dismissed on the ground of multiplicity of causes of action. She thereupon ~ appealed to this Court by Special Leaves. . ..L “”1~ H Allowing the Appeal, this Court
Date of decision : 21-04-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3962/1994 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
753  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SCIENTIFIC WORKERS ASSOCIATION (REGD.) KANPUR AND ORS. – [1994] 3 S.C.R. 124
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,J.S. VERMA
tenns of Clause 21 of the Jr ~M Scheme Articles 136, 141-I7ze Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, S. 28 “ad with I7ie central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, l’.ule 17-When Appeal against main judgment of T1ibwwl dismissed in d<j 1ult E whether appeal against dismissal of the Senior Scientific Assistants with effect from September 22, H 1982. Scientific Workers Association, respondent in tlie appeal herein, filed -j \ ~. .. ‘ < , _, ‘· U.0.1. v. SCIENTIFIC WORKERS ASSN. [KULDIP SINGH, J.] 127 OA 952/86 before the central administrative tribunal , Principal
Date of decision : 18-03-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3954/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
754UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANR. ETC. Vs RAHUL RASGOTRA AND ORS. ETC. – [1994] 1 S.C.R. 508
Judge Name: N.P. SINGH,N. VENKATACHALA
. He too is G aggrieved by the allotment of Orissa Cadre to him. Both of them filed applications before the central administrative tribunal challenging the cadre allotment. Their claim has been allowed by the Tribunal. Hence these appeals by special leave are filed by the Union of India. H We) Regulations, 1955 and granted extension of time to join the service.” It does appear that this retrospective amendment by insertion of the explanation in sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 is clarificatory in nature and was as a result of the view taken by the central administrative tribunal in such D
Date of decision : 01-02-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5414/1993
755M.V. KRISHNA RAO AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1994] 1 S.C.R. 400
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,FAIZAN UDDIN
Appeal Nos. 399, 398, 396 and 397 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dat~d 11.1.1991, 6.10.1989 & C 19.9.1991 of the central administrative tribunal Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A. Nos. 191/88, 370/87, 213/88 & 173 of 1990. R.F. Nariman, A. Raghuvir, M. Chandrasekharan, K. Madhava Raddy. JEEV AN REDDY, J • . CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2177 OF 1988 1. The appellants are direct recruits to Indian Police Service (J.P.S.), while the respondents 5 to 11 are promotees. In this appeal, directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad, the dispute pertains to the
Date of decision : 27-01-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2177/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
756  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
STATE OF HARYANA Vs HARI RAM YADAV AND ORS. – [1994] 1 S.C.R. 168
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,K. RAMASWAMY,S.C. AGRAWAL
requirement of rule 3(1) of the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench quashed the suspension order on the graund that it does not contain a recital to the effect that the Governor of Haryana was satisfied that it was either necessary order of suspension. [174-G-H, 175-A-B] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1247 of D 1993. From. the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1992 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh in O.A. No. 1573/CH/91. Ms. Nisha Bagchi for Ms. Indu Malhotra for the Appellant. E P.P. Rao
Date of decision : 19-01-1994 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1247/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
757  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SMT. RENU MULLICK Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 825
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
reverted from the post of Inspector. She . G challenged the reversion order before central administrative tribunal , Allahabad. The Tribunal upheld the reversion order and accepted the respondent-Union of India’s stand that on transfer the service rendered by her at Delhi was wiped off for all question for our consideration is whether the said officer is further deprived of the C said service even for determining his eligibility for promotion to the higher cadre. The central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Bench, has answered the question in the affirmative. This appeal by way of special
Date of decision : 19-11-1993 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/7143/1993
758  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs S. DHARMALINGAM – [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 446
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,S. MOHAN
central administrative tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’). The said application of the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated July 12, 1988. The Tribunal has directed the appellants to give to the respondent the benefit of addition of F computed number of years to his qualifying
Date of decision : 28-10-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/503/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
759  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs DR. GYAN PRAKASH SINGH – [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 551
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,S.P. BHARUCHA
central administrative tribunal challenging the same. The Tribunal held that the ad hoc appoint­ ment of the respondent having been made by an order dated 1.10.1984, he was governed by the direction given by this court in Dr. A.K. Jain H 551 552 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A found unfit by the U.P.S.C. for retention in service and, therefore, they were not regularised. The ad hoc service of the respondent was then terminated on 9.4.1992. B c D Aggrieved by his non-regularisation, the respondent filed an applica­ tion before the central administrative tribunal challenging
Date of decision : 30-09-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/765/1993
760  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DR. H. MUKHERJEE AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 529
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
and Order dated 09.02.1993 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. Nos. 512 and C 2473 of 1989. S.K. Dholakia and Arvind Minocha for the Appellant in CA No. 3668/93. K.T.S. Tulsi, Addi. Solicitor General, Ms. K. Amareshwari, Ms. A. D Subhashini and Girish against the decision rendered by the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal on February 9, 1993 where by it directed the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (for short ‘ACC’) to reconsider the suitability of F respondent No. 1 S.K. Bhargava for appointment to the post of Chief
Date of decision : 28-09-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3668/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
761  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs P.C. MISRA – [1993] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 96
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,A.S. ANAND
were not selected and some of their juniors were appointed to the Junior Administrative Grade on 17.5.1989. The Respondents approached the central administrative tribunal challenging their non-selection and the Tribunal directed that the respondents should be deemed to have been G regularly for the respondent in appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 14402/92. These appeals are directed against the orders dated March 4, 1992, passed by the1 central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’. Since they raise common questions for
Date of decision : 02-09-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4414/1993 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
762  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs R. REDDAPPA AND ANOTHER – [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 503
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,R.M. SAHAI
decide the case. The central administrative tribunal , held that the ratio of Tulsi Ram Patel was of no assistance, as appeals had been rejected earlier and nothin·g was pending. The employees approached the Minister and he passed an order reinstating them just one day prior to the Ministry fell. However, it was D rescinded by the President. E F Union of India filed appeals against the orders of the central administrative tribunal , allowing claim Applications of the employees. The employees, whose claim Applications had been dismissed by the Tribunal also preferred appeals before
Date of decision : 05-08-1993 | Case Number : ARBITRATION PETITION/461/1992
763  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI PURNENDU MUKHOPADHYAY AND ORS. – [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 496
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,R.M. SAHAI
Appeal No. 2322 of B c 1991. !’mm the Judgment dated 9.7.1990 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta in T.A. No. 1069 of 1986 (CR. 1671-W/1988). N.N. Goswami, T.C. Sharma, C.V.S. Rao and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Appellants. S.M. Jain, S.K. Jain, A.P. Dhamija, S. Atreya and Ms. Pratibha Jain for the Reopondents. M.C. Dhingra (NP) for the Intervenor. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.M. SAHA!, J. In this appeal directed against the judgment and D order of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench herein’after referred to as ‘CAT’) the short
Date of decision : 05-08-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2322/1991
764UNION OF INDIA ETC. Vs G.K. SANGAMESHWAR AND ORS. ETC. – [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: S.C. AGRAWAL,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
assigned the year 1969 as the year of allotment. \’ide communication dated October 25, 1988, the said representation of ‘S’ was rejected. The central administrative tribunal H 1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A quashed the letter dated October 25, 1988 of the Government of The central administrative tribunal quashed the orders of the F Government of India regarding assignment of the year of allotment and directed the Union oflndia and the State of Karnataka to consider his case for refixation of his seniority with reference to the year 1974. The Union of India
Date of decision : 13-07-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3215/1993
765  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
S. SARKAR & ORS. Vs R.D. KRISTON, CHAIRMAN RLY. BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI AND ORS. – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 756
Judge Name: R.M. SAHAI,N. VENKATACHALA
. 2054of1990 From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.87 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta in T.A. No. 1263/86. G.S. Chatterjee and Avijit Bhattacliarjee for the Appellants. Dr. Anand Prakash, P. Narasimhan for B.K. Prasad, for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was
Date of decision : 14-05-1993 | Case Number : CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL)/130/1991 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
766  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs B. JAYARAMAN AND ORS. – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 712
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
for promotion from the cadre of Superintendent Grade II to the cadre of Superintendent Grade I Service Jurisprudence-Nonna/ Rule of length of service-Applicability of The petitioners before the central administrative tribunal had been working as Superintendents Grade II in the Secretariat of 4609 Of F 1992. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8. 1989 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in O.A. No. 145 to 150/87. A.S. Nambiar, P.K. Manohar and Shanti Vasudevan for the Appellant. R. Venkataramni, V.G. Pragasani and S.M. Garg for the Respondents. The Judgment of the
Date of decision : 13-05-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4604/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
767RATAN CHANDRA SAMMANTA AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 751
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,R.M. SAHAI
DIZHA. S.E. Rly. KGP and they do not follow the orders of they Supreme Court, High Court of Calcutta and central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench. As a result of their indifference, the project casual labou·r who are retrenched from service on or before 1.1.1981 are in great difficulties
Date of decision : 13-05-1993 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/71/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
768  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs S.L. ABBAS – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 427
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,B.P. JEEVAN REDDY
issued iJY Government-Whether haVe statutory force. Constitution of India, 1950/central administrative tribunals Act, 1985: Article 323-NSection 14-Jurisdiction. of central administrative tribunal -Exercise of-Whether Tribunal can interfere with an order of Trans- A B c ~ D The . transfer was due to the misChief of his Controlling Officer. In the counter-affidavit med by the appellants, it was submitted that the tramf’er was ordered on administrative grounds and was unexceptionable. . . A Single Member of the central administrative tribunal quashed the order or
Date of decision : 27-04-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2348/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
769  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CENTRAL RAILWAY AUDIT STAFF ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs DIRECTOR OF AUDIT, CENTRAL RAILWAY AND OTHERS ETC. – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 296
Judge Name: P.B. SAWANT,N. VENKATACHALA
application before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, claiming that Assistant Audit Officers, given Gazetted status Group B after December 31, 1985, were also entitled to the privileges and facilities admissible to Railway Officers, classified ‘Group B’. The application was PrinciparRench of the central administrative tribunal , to be referred to herein-after as “the Tribunal”. which ex:ruruned the said grievance, rejected it by order dated 13th March, 1992. The grievance, so rejected by the Tribunal, is again ventilated in these Special Leave Petitions, seeking redressal
Date of decision : 20-04-1993 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/10784/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
770  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JAGTAR SINGH Vs DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS. – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 77
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
19.1.1987 of the central administrative tribunal in Registration 0.A. No. 123/86. n V.C. Mahajan, Gaurav Jain and M~. Abha Jain for the Appellant. E N.N. Goswami, Tara Chand Sharma and C. V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. The judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J. Special
Date of decision : 13-04-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1732/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
771  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs KEWAL KUMAR – [1993] 3 S.C.R. 45
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,S.C. AGRAWAL
) CIVILAPPELLATEJURISDICTIONCivilAppealNo.1584of E 1993. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.8.1992 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi in 0.A. No. 2737 of 1991. V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, R. Sasiprabhu and V.K. Vernia (NP) for the Appellant. S.K. Gupta. R.K. Kamal
Date of decision : 12-04-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1584/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
772KKM NAIR AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1993] 2 S.C.R. 906
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,N.M. KASLIWAL,R.M. SAHAI
, challenged the DG’s order before the· central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the DG’s order giving ante-dated seniority to the appellants. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal Court could not be made lo suffer for no rault or theirs. On the other hand some employees challenged the order dated February 20/25, 1987 which affected them adversely within the period or limitation before the central administrative tribunal . In B any case the judgment of this Court in
Date of decision : 31-03-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1690/1993 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
773  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
P.M. BAYAS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1993] 2 S.C.R. 567
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,N.M. KASLIWAL
members of the Maharashtra-Civil Service- challenged before the central administrative tribunal the selec­ tion of the appellants to IAS by way of selection under the IAS (Recruit- Y ment) Rules, 1954. They claimed that their names were placed on the select E list for promotion to tAs, but they ,… 1993. H Special leave granted. .A f- y P.M.BAYASv. U.0.1.[KULDIPSINGH,J.] 577 In view of the our judgment in Civil Appeal No.1414 of 1993 arising A out of Special Leave Petition (civil) No.17028 of 1991 dated March 23, 1993 this appeal is allowed and the interim order dated September 9, 1991 in O.A. No.530 of 1991 pending before the central administrative tribunal , Bombay is quashed. No costs. G.N. Appeals allowed.
Date of decision : 23-03-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1414/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
774CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERING A DEPARTMENT, U.T.CHANDIGARH Vs KAMLESH BABOO ETC. ETC. – [1993] 2 S.C.R. 121
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,N.M. KASLIWAL
D to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer and was confirmed on 13.8.1985. With effect from 21.1.1986, the respondent was promoted as Executive Engineer (Civil). The service particulars or the respondent in C.A. No.183 or 1993 were E identical. The respondents approached the Central Administrative Tribunal ‘( to determine their seniority in the cadre of Executive Engineers from the date of eligibility, i.e. 1.1.1985 and not from 21.1.1986. • F The Tribunal allowed the applications of the respondents, against which the presevt appeals were filed by the Administration. Allowing
Date of decision : 25-02-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/182/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
775  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BHASKAR GAJANAN KAJREKAR Vs ADMINISTRATOR, DADRA AND NAGAR HAVEL! AND ORS. – [1993] 2 S.C.R. 60
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
the ground that throughout his service he was working on officiating basis and was never appointed substantively to any or the posts held by him. The appellant challenged the denial or pension to him before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal held that since the appellant retired+725 of 1992. – From the Judgment and Order dated 13.11.90 & 10.8.90 of the central administrative tribunal , New Bombay in M.P. No. 855/90, & 0.A. E No. 799 of 1989. F N.M. Ghatate, Anand Prasad and S.V. Deshpande for the Appellant. T.C. Sharma and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents
Date of decision : 23-02-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/724/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
776  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
T.S. THIRUVENGADAM Vs THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, NEW DELHI AND ORS. – [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1078
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,N.M. KASLIWAL
date of coming into force of the said Memorandum. The appellant challenged the same by filing a Writ Petition before the High Court. Subsei111ently, the Writ Petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal which ~ejected the claim of the appellant. Being aggrieved against the o[ his absorp- ~ lion in the public undertaking. The writ petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Madras. The tribunal by its judgment dated June 14, 1988 dismissed the application and rejected the claim of the appellant. This appeal by way of special leave is against
Date of decision : 17-02-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/666/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
777  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs C.L. VERMA – [1993] 1 S.C.R. 1044
Judge Name: N.M. KASLIWAL,R.M. SAHAI
refe”ed to l<nger bench. Words and Phrases–”Prospectively”-Meani11g of The respondent-employee was dismissed from service without sup­ plying him a copy of the enquiry report at the time to hearing. The order of dismissal was challenged in the central administrative tribunal , and D the same 30.9.1983. He was dismissed from Railway service with effect . from 29.8.1985 by the – disciplinary authority. An appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the President of India vide order dated 21.8.1986. The respondent chat- lenged his dismissal in the central administrative tribunal . The
Date of decision : 12-02-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/611/1993 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench
778  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs HARNAM SINGH – [1993] 1 S.C.R. 862
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,A.S. ANAND
submitted by the respondent wherein he had drawn the attention of the Department to the order of the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal in the case of Darshan Singh v. Union of India, wherein the Tribunal had directed that the date of birth should be corrected on the basis of the matriculation certificate. This representation was also rejected by the appellant on 22.4.1992 •. ·Being aggrieved the respondent challenged the aforesaid order by an . application before the central administrative tribunal and this was con· tested by the appellant on various grounds
Date of decision : 09-02-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/502/1993 | Disposal Nature : Leave granted
779  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHRI DULAL DUTI – [1993] 1 S.C.R. 853
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,YOGESHWAR DAYAL,S. MOHAN
order of compulsory retirement of the Railway Board the respondent preferred an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 before the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta. In the said application the respondent inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “(a has been formed in public interest G and the requirement of the rule had.been strict!y complied with. H The central administrative tribunal by the impugned judgment dated 29th May, 1992 allowed the application of the respondent holding that – “the circumstances under which the impugned order
Date of decision : 05-02-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/572/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
780  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs K. K. DHAWAN – [1993] 1 S.C.R. 296
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,S. MOHAN,S.P. BHARUCHA
·respondent preferred an application before the central administrative tribunal , praying for a stay of the disciplinary proceedings and to consider his case for promotion on merits without resort to the sealed cover procedure. On 8.2.1991, the Tribunal directed the appellant-Union of India to Nos. 266-267 A B ~~ c From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2.91 & 22.3.91.of the central administrative tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A. No. 2540/89 & M.P. No. 219 of 1991. K.T.S. Tuls~ Additional Solicitor General, B. Parthasartby, P. Par- meshwaran and C.V.S. Rao for the
Date of decision : 27-01-1993 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/266/1993 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
781  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs SOMDUTT UPP AL AND ANR. – [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 674
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,P.B. SAWANT
case of the respondent No. 2 (in CANos. 2698-99 of 1992 who D was also the appellant in C.A.Nos. 2700-01 of 1992) . before the central administrative tribunal was that he was junior as U.D.C. to respondent No. I (in all appeals). But he took his examination for the post of the dents. c 3. However, in the impugned decision, the central administrative tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) took the view, firstly that the • passing of the qualifying examination was not a pre-requisite for being promoted to the post of Superintendent. For this purpose, the Tribunal relied upon two
Date of decision : 17-12-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2698/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
782SYED KHALID RIZVI AND ORS. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 180
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
recruits and promotees and consider­ ing the material on record, the Central Government prepared a fresh seniority list. This was challenged before the central administrative tribunal which directed the Central Government to prepare the seniority list afresh. This was challenged again. In central administrative tribunal D committed the gravest of errors in holding that EJ.planation 1 to rule 3(3)(b) of Seniority Rules and the relevant rules were deemed to have been relaxed and the directions given to the Central Govt. to refix the seniority is illegal. However, many of the promotees
Date of decision : 20-11-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/823/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
783  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DR. S.M. ILYAS AND ORS. Vs INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 438
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,N.M. KASLIWAL,K. RAMASWAMY
before the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal , Delhi and contended that according to the notification dated 9.3.1989 together with the subsequent clarifications, juniors and less meritorious Scientists and who were drawing lesser basic B ·pay as on 31.12.1985 than the appellants Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLIWAL, J. The appellants who are Scientists working in various Institutes under Indian Council of Agricultural Research (in short ‘[CAR’) throughout the country have filed this appeal against the order of the central administrative tribunal , New
Date of decision : 13-11-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2736/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
784  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
INDIAN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE (S.C.S.) ASSOCIATION, U.P. AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 389
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
the W.P. (C) No. 499 of 1991 – filed an application before the central administrative tribunal at Lucknow con­ tending that they were promoted in 1980 onwards, and they were dis­ criminated in fixation of their seniority. The Tribunal held that the prospective operation of the 1987 Rules. (C) No. 13823/91 is allowed and the order of the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad Bench at Lucknow is set aside. But in the circumstances parties are directed to bear their own costs throughout. VPR. WP(C) No. 499/91-dismissed. CA. No. 4794/92· dismissed. CA. No. 4788/92-allowed. E
Date of decision : 11-11-1992 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/499/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : allowing C.A. No. 4788 of 1992, this Conrt
785  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M. SANKARANARAYANAN IAS. Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 368
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,G.N. RAY
that the declaration, required as under Rule 9(1) of !AS (Pay) Rules had not been made. B The central administrative tribunal after considering the facts and circumstances came to the finding that the freedom to choose a person as the Chief Secretary to the liking of the Chief Minister and the. (387-E] In the instant case, the pleadings of the appellant before the central administrative tribunal only indicate that some of his suggestions in the matter of posting of senior bureaucratic officers of the ~tate had not been E accepted by the present Chief Minister of the State. Such facts
Date of decision : 11-11-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4090/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
786  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs DR. P. RAIARAM AND OTHERS – [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 35
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,S. MOHAN,N. VENKATACHALA
the Ministry’s order dated 15.3.1989. Hence the Trlbnnal was in error in merely adopting seniority as the basis of promotion and not merit. (53 C·G] B c D CIVJLAPPELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 4507 and 4508 of 1992. From the Order dated 20.1.1992 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras granted. Both these appeals can be dealt with by a common judgment since identical issues are involved. They are directed against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Madras dated 23.1.1992. S.L.P. No. E 7138/92 is preferred by Union of India while S.L.P. No. 6494/92 is filed by
Date of decision : 20-10-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4507/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
787DR. RAVINDER NATH Vs STATE OF H.P. AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 876
Judge Name: P.B. SAWANT,N.P. SINGH
were qualified to be promoted to the post of Vaidya. Hence, they filed a writ petition in the F High Court which was transferred to the central administrative tribunal . To the writ petition, the State as well as the promotees to the post of Vaidya, were made parties. Before the Tribunal, the
Date of decision : 25-09-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3959/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
788  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
S.B. DOGRA Vs STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 825
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,K. RAMASWAMY
. I S.C.R. A Rule 18(C) H.P. Police Rules could not be altered or changed and, there· fore, bis Inclusion in the Select List prepared by the Selection Committee at Its meeting of December 20, 1982 was unassailable. The central administrative tribunal , relying on the decisions of this Court decision in LPA No.18/81, the present respondent No.5 without seeking impleadment in the said appeal moved a Writ Petition in the High Court in 1983 claiming seniority over the appellant and sought consequential reliefs. That Writ Petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal under
Date of decision : 24-09-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2016/1987 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
789  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JUNIOR TELECOM OFFICERS FORUM AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 764
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,A.S. ANAND
. The CAT allowed the applications. Some more Junior Engineers later on approached the Principal Bench of central administrative tribunal seeking relief identical to that of the Allahabad cases. B The Principal Bench allowed the applications and issned directions for relixation of the contained in para 206 of the P&T Manual. A direction was issued to the respondents to comply with the orders of central administrative tribunal within the time fixed by the CAT. D The order of CAT was challenged in this Court both by the Union of India and JTOA (India) who bad sought permission
Date of decision : 18-09-1992 | Case Number : TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL)/417/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
790  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DDA GRADUATE ENGINEERS’ ASSOCIATION AND ORS. Vs LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 474
Judge Name: P.B. SAWANT,G.N. RAY
1988 on the file of central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi, decided on 30.4.1990, referred to. 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3757 of 1992. From the Judgment and Order dated 14.5.91 of the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 1669 of 1990. C M.K
Date of decision : 09-09-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3757/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
791  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs MUNIM SINGH AND ORS. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 405
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,S. MOHAN,N. VENKATACHALA
Tribunal for preparation of list on All-India basis-Validity of On an application filed by the respondents, who were engaged as casual workmen In the Telecommunication Department, the appellants were directed by the central administrative tribunal , to pay the respon- D dents the benefits under. By this appeal the appellants are challenging the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, directing them to pay the F respondents, who were engaged as causal workmen during the period May, 1988 to June, 1990 in the Telecommunication Department, the benefits under the
Date of decision : 03-09-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3792/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
792  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NELSON MOTJS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 325
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,M.M. PUNCHHI,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
a report holding that the char­ ges were proved. Accepting the report, the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal of the appellant from service, which was confirmed in the departmental appeal. The appellant challenged the order of punishment by an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal . Before the Tribunal, it was contended that since a copy of the inquiry report was not served, the proceeding got vitiated In law. E F G The Tribunal allowed the application, setting aside the penalty and H 325 SUPREMI! COURT REl’Dll,TS(l99~] SUPP. 1 s.c.R,. A removal of the appellant from service on 4.2.1984. The order was confirmed in departmental appeal. The appellant, thereafter, challenged the order of F punishment by an application before the central administrative tribunal which was registered as OA No. 401 of 1987. It was contended that since a held that the appellant, who was not under suspension earlier, cannot be treated to have been placed under suspension when his writ petition was allowed by the Tribunal. Reliance H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS[1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A has been placed on the decision of the central administrative tribunal in
Date of decision : 02-09-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3516/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
793UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs DEEP CHAND PANDEY AND ANR. – [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 49
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,S. MOHAN,N. VENKATACHALA
i UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A v. DEEP CHAND PANDEY AND ANR. AUGUST 27,1992 [L.M. SHARMA, S. MOHAN AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B Civil Services: Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985: Sections 3( q) and 14-Jurisdiction of central administrative tribunal – C Casual typists in Railways approached the central administrative tribunal . On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that they were not holding any civil post under the Union of India and were engaged only on casual basis, and that after the termination of their services, the relation­ ship of master and servant ceased to
Date of decision : 27-08-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3488/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
794  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Vs LT. COL. KOMAL CHARAN AND ORS. – [1992] 3 S.C.R. 259
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,A.S. ANAND
When the dates of their retirement were drawing close .the respon- ~ dents filed applications before the central administrative tribunal , and contended that they were entitled to continue in service until they attained the age of fifty-eight years as per the Civil Service and1Fundamental Rules prescribing fifty-eight years as the age of retirement. Allowing the appeals and setting aside the judgment” of the central administrative tribunal , this Court, HELD : 1. The National Cadet Crops has been established under -r E Section 3 of the National Cadet Corps Act, 1948. Section 9
Date of decision : 14-05-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2449/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
795  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
V.S.MURTHY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1992] 3 S.C.R. 92
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,A.S. ANAND
. [ANAND, J.] 97 V.K. Verma for the Respondents. A ,>..__ The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. A.S. ANAND, J. The short and only question requiring con- sideration of this Court in this appeal, by Special Leave, from the order of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New of his pension, the appellant approached the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, Delhi: 4. The claim of the appellant was contested by the respondents before the Tribunal on various grounds. It was urged that the service rendered by the appellant on deputation to the HOCL was
Date of decision : 07-05-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/127/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
796  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ETC. ETC. Vs PRATAP NARAIN AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1992] 2 S.C.R. 957
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,R.M. SAHAI
of this Court-quoted above-are crystal-clear. It is E F G a pity that the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi (Tribunal) · viewed the above directions in utter oblivion. This Court directed the Union of India: (a) To treat all persons, stated to have been promoted contrary to
Date of decision : 29-04-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3264/1991 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
797  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
BHOOP SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1992] 2 S.C.R. 969
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,J.S. VERMA,A.S. ANAND
identical with that·oftbe petitioners in the writ petitions filed in 1978. These petitions were.trJtnsferred to the central administrative tribunal which held that they were entitled to the same H 969 970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992]. 2 S.C.R. A relief as was granted in the writ petitions filed in constable and filed a petition . before the central administrative tribunal for re-instatement in service and con­ sequential benefits on the ground that his case and claim was similar C to that of the police constables who had succeeded in the earlier rounds of litigation. The Tribunal rejected the
Date of decision : 29-04-1992 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/1485/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
798UNION OF INDIA THROUGH CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION (U.T.) CHANDIGARH AND ANR. Vs S.K. SHARMA, PROFESSOR OF CIVIL ENGINEERING PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE, CHANDIGARH – [1992] 2 S.C.R. 459
Judge Name: N.M. KASLIWAL,K. RAMASWAMY
Professor (Senior Scale) on regular basis. The respondent was not paid his pay and allowances for the period F for which he worked against the post of Professor (P.G. Course) or (Senior Scale) on ad hoc basis from 28.6.1969 to 29.9.1973. He filed an application before the central administrative tribunal Chandigarh for the A Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KASLfWAL, J. Union of India and the Home Secretary Chandigarh Administration have filed this appeal by grant of special leave challenging the order of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh dated March 3, 1988. The
Date of decision : 03-04-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3082/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
799  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs A.N. SAXENA – [1992] 2 S.C.R. 364
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,S. MOHAN
for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KA..1’1IA, CJ. These appeals are directed against two orders passed by the central administrative tribunal (Principal Bench), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “The tribunal”). By the first impugned order the appellant was tribunal for varying or vacating the relief granted in connection with the pension. … A B Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct C that a copy of this order should be forwarded to the Chairman of the central administrative tribunal so that he may consider whether
Date of decision : 27-03-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/50/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
800  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SYED MOHD. RAZA KAZMI AND ORS. – [1992] 2 S.C.R. 280
Judge Name: S. RANGANATHAN,V. RAMASWAMI,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
the Tax Assistants, who formed a higher grade, ~ were considered along with such UDCs, for promotion to the post of Head c Clerks. ~ Being aggrieved by the said instructions, the respondents ap· proacbed the central administrative tribunal , contending that the Tax Assistants should be consequently delayed because Tax Assistants could be considered for promotion as F Inspectors only after Head Clerks; and he was also under a handicap in regard to his eligibility for appearing in the officers’ examination. The central administrative tribunal felt that there was an injustice
Date of decision : 13-03-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2255/1992 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
801R. TAMILMANI Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. – [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1072
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,R.M. SAHAI,G.N. RAY
‘. But his name was not recommended for consideration by the Union Public Service Commission on the ground that there was no ‘consensus’ regarding his ability. The appellant filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , Madras for a direction that he should be considered and appointed to the Indian Administrative Service. His F application was dismissed. He filed an appeal in this Court. Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : The central administrative tribunal was in error in dis­ missing the application of the appellant. If out of five committee members three
Date of decision : 26-02-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3145/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
802UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs BASANT LAL AND ORS. – [1992] 1 S.C.R. 823
Judge Name: N.M. KASLIWAL,K. RAMASWAMY
. Special leave granted. B The Union of India has filed this appeal by grant of Special Leave challenging the order of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi dated 16.3.1990. Shri Basant Lal and 104 others were employed on the post of casual labour in July, 1988. Their
Date of decision : 18-02-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/847/1992 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
803UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SECRETARY, MADRAS CIVIL AUDIT & ACCOUNTS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. ETC. – [1992] 1 S.C.R. 530
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY
central administrative tribunal held that the employees belonging to-the Accounts Wing of Indian Audit and Ac· t=ounts Department were entitled to the benefit under Office Memo dated U.6.87 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Depart· ment of Expenditure with eft’ect from 1.1.86 (‘”I.A. & A.D.” for short) with efftct frnm 1.1.86 as in the case of Audit Wing or wh~.:thcr it should be from 1.4.87 as indicated in the said Office M..:nw ‘! S..:n.:ral of the ~mployccs belonging to the Accounts Wing filed pctitillllS and the Bangalore Bench of central administrative tribunal G
Date of decision : 04-02-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1783/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
804P. K. JAISWAL Vs Ms. DEBI MUKHERJEE AND ORS. – [1992] 1 S.C.R. 1
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,S.C. AGRAWAL
, the commission advertised the post and the appellant was called for an interview where­ upon Respondent No. 1, an Assistant Secretary who was expecting her promotion to the. post on amendment of the rules, obtained an interim order from central administrative tribunal , staying the process of E F G H 4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1992) 1 S. C.R. the recruiunent rules, approached the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi and obtained an interim order staying the process of selection initiated by the Commission. It may here be mentioned that in the meantime two further layers
Date of decision : 07-01-1992 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/138/1992 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
805R. K. SINHA AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1991] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 524
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,J.S. VERMA,S.C. AGRAWAL
whereas the persons working as Telegraphists were appointed on the upgraded posts of LSGTM. _/ The appellants challenged their reversion and claimed appointment to the upgraded posts of LSGTM. The central administrative tribunal allowed their claim so far as it related to reversion and held that
Date of decision : 20-12-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2033/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
806N. SURESH NATHAN AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1991] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 423
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,J.S. VERMA,S.C. AGRAWAL
of the Junior Engineers who join the service with a Degree; and the other category is of Diploma-holders with six years’ experience. The Diploma-holders went to the central administrative tribunal G with this contention and the Tribunals has upheld their claim and directed as under: “In the
Date of decision : 22-11-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4542/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
807  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA ETC. ETC. Vs K.V. JANKIRAMAN ETC. ETC. – [1991] 3 S.C.R. 790
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,M.H. KANIA,P.B. SAWANT
considers the promotion. [805C-D] G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. JU 18-21 of 1987. From the Judgment and Orders dated 24.4.87, 2.3.87, & 1.4.87 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad in Original Applita- H A 794 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1991] 3 S.C.R
Date of decision : 27-08-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3018/1987 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
808  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs DR. M.G. DIGHE AND ORS. – [1991] 3 S.C.R. 776
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,P.B. SAWANT
to be considered is 11. I 78 IE] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3383 B of 1991. c D From the Judgment and Order dated 9.11.1990 of the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur in 0.A. No. 129 of 1989. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, Hemani Sharma and C.V.S 5 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulations’). The first respondent and five others who were members of the Madhya Pradesh State Civir E Service had approached the central administrative tribunal (‘Tri­ bunal
Date of decision : 27-08-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3383/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
809  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
MAHENDER SINGH Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR – [1991] 3 S.C.R. 330
Judge Name: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY,V. RAMASWAMI,YOGESHWAR DAYAL
. ·~ · From the Judgment and Order dated 17 4:1990 of the central administrative tribunal . Delhi in R.A. No. 117/88 in T.A. No. 351 of 1986. O.P. Saxena and fylukul Gupta for the Appellant. J.D. Jain, Kailash Vasudev, Ms. Sushma Suri and S.N. Terdal G for the Respondents. H 332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1991] 3 S.C.R. A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by B c D E f G H K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. This appeal is from an order of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi and concerns with the ,_ scope of Rule 10(4) of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965
Date of decision : 02-08-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1821/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
810  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
SMT. VIOLET ISSAC AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1991] 1 S.C.R. 282
Judge Name: K.N. SINGH,P.B. SAWANT
amount, as an injunction had been issued by the Civil Court. The appellants there-upon made an application before the central administrative tribunal for a direction for the release of the amounts on the grounds that the will was a forged one, and the beneficiary was not entitled to receive., [1980] 4 S.C.C. 306, followed. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 653 of 1991. H A 284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991] 1 S.C.R. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.1989 of the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh in O.A. No. 694 of 1988. Avadh Behari, A.K. Sharma
Date of decision : 08-02-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/653/1991 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
811SHANKAR PANDURANG JADHAV AND ORS. ETC. Vs VICE-ADMIRAL, FLAG OFFICER, COMMANDING-IN-CHIEF AND ORS. ETC. – [1991] 1 S.C.R. 219
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,V. RAMASWAMI,M. FATHIMA BEEVI
likely to suffer on transfer. · [230F-G] The State of Kera la v. M. K. Krishnan ·Nair & Ors., [1973] 1 SCC 552, referred to. B CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 552- c D E F G H 554of1991. From the Judgment and Order dated 9.10.1989 of the central administrative tribunal , New April, 1985 and 5th October, 1985 respectively to other administrative depart­ ments of the Naval establishment. These transfers triggered off certain writ petitions in the High Court of Bombay. On the constitutic>n of the central administrative tribunal for that area, those writ petitions D were
Date of decision : 05-02-1991 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/552/1991 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed | Direction Issue : Petition & Appeals dismissed.
812  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
A.K. BHATNAGAR AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 638
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
appeal while the two other Civil Appeals are directed against two separate judg- ments of the central administrative tribunal made in 1987 following ,. the aforesaid Madras decision . The Writ Petition as will be presently indicated is by 29 petitioners. Who had not been regularly recruited to c Tribunal are vacated and the two claims filed before the central administrative tribunal are also dismissed. On more than one occasion this Court has indicated to the Union and the State Governments that once they frame rules, their_ action in respect of matters covered by rules should be regulated by
Date of decision : 09-11-1990 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/12874/1985 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Petitions dismissed and appeals allowed.
813  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES AND ANR. Vs DR. O.N. TRIPATHI AND ORS. – [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 335
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,P.B. SAWANT,K. RAMASWAMY
·onwards-Directions of Court in earlier cases-Clatification of. · A B c Respondents .Nos. 1 and 2, direct recruit Income Tax Officers, Class I, filed a petition before .the central administrative tribunal contending that they were not appointed to the next higher post of Assistant Commissioner of 1987. From the Judgment and Order dated 18.3.1987 of the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad in Registration T.A, No. 999 of 1986: A. Subba Rao and C.V. Rao for the Appellants. • Harish N. Salve, B.S. Chauhan, Sushi! Kumar Jain, Ms. Gitan- jali Mohan and B.P. Singh for the
Date of decision : 24-10-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2675/1987 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
814  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
M.B. MAJUMDAR Vs UNION OF INDIA – [1990] 3 S.C.R. 946
Judge Name: J.S. VERMA,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY
. In this writ petition he claims equality of the Members of the Administrative Tribunal with the Judges of the High Court, or even the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal, in the matter of pay, and age of superannuation. The central administrative tribunal (Salaries and Allowances and Conditions of superannuation, between the Vice-Chairman G and the Members; that the judicial functions discharged by the Vice­ Chairman and the Members of the central administrative tribunal were the same and, therefore, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” applied, and on that basis Article 14 had been
Date of decision : 22-08-1990 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/960/1987 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
815KRISHENA KUMAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1990] 3 S.C.R. 352
Judge Name: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI,B.C. RAY,M.H. KANIA,K.N. SAIKIA,S.C. AGRAWAL
increased. [383E] G CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition –“°\ (Civil) No. 8461of1986. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.3.1986 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi, in Original Appln. No. 40 of H 1986. 356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1990] 3 S.C.R. A AND Writ Judg- H ment of the central administrative tribunal , Bombay. The Tribunal \ .__ _, • – ,· –‘-4, KRlSHENA KUMAR v. U.O.L [SAIKIA, J.] 383 had held the same notifications as were impugned herein to be dis- ~ criminatory and had directed that a fresh option be given to all P .F
Date of decision : 13-07-1990 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/8461/1986 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
816LT. GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ORS. Vs CONST. DHARAMPAL AND ORS. – [1990] 3 S.C.R. 93
Judge Name: B.C. RAY,N.M. KASLIWAL
have been in service throughout, and awarding conseqnentlal benefits, Relying on the decision of the High Court, as affirmed by the Supreme Court, in the case of some Constables, whose services were similarly terminated, the central administrative tribunal , to whom the cases were transferred reinstatement shall be taken into account. l9SE-F J G CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 3376- 3382 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1987 of the central administrative tribunal . Delhi in T. Nos. 950, 961, 972. 986, 1049, H 93 A 94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1990] 3
Date of decision : 04-05-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3376/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
817S.B. SARKAR AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1990] 2 S.C.R. 813
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,R.M. SAHAI
those C appellants. The appellants-Station Masters of South/Eastern Railway aggrie­ ved by the implementation of the scheme of re-structuring by the Chief Personnel Officer approached the central administrative tribunal , which rejected their claim; as the implementation was beneficial to the D Order dated 23.1.1987 of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta in Transfer Application No. 1263 of 1986. A.P. Chatterjee, G.S. Chatterjee (NP) and Ms. Raina Bhatta­ charya for the Appellants. R.B. Dattar (NP), Anil Dev Singh, B.K. Prasad, C.V. Subba Rao and R.B. Misra for the
Date of decision : 30-04-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2054/1990 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
818VIRENDER KUMAR, GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI Vs AVINASH CHANDRA CHADHA AND ORS. – [1990] 2 S.C.R. 769
Judge Name: L.M. SHARMA,P.B. SAWANT
list in 1976. Since the said seniority list look care of the grievances only of the employees who were parties to the petition, some of the Traffic Apprentices filed an applica­ tion before the central administrative tribunal for a direction to quash the seniority list of 1976 and to prepare a dated 14.9.1988 of the central administrative tribunal , Delhi in C.C.P. No. 17 of 1987 in T. 246 of 1985: Anil Dev Singh, C.V.S. Rao, T.C. Sharma and B.K Pershad for the Appellant. Subodh Markandeya, W.A. Nomani, G. Seshagiri Rao, A.K. Raina, Mrs. Chitra Markandeya, G.D. Gupta and Ashok K
Date of decision : 25-04-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2013/1990 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
819CLOTHING FACTORY, NATIONAL WORKERS’ UNION AVADI, MADRAS, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY Vs UNION OF INDIA BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, NEW DELHI AND ORS. – [1990] 2 S.C.R. 617
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,M. FATHIMA BEEVI
High Court, which was later transferred to the central administrative tribunal and which has been disposed of by the Tribunal by the impugned order. Hence this appeal by the Union after obtaining special leave. The appeal preferred against the order of the learned single Judge of the High Court. C.H. Kokil, (1984] Suppl. S.C.C. 196, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1929 H of 1990. – =– l ·• , _,’r T “r -~ ~ I >–I CLOTHING FACTORY v. U.0.J. [AHMADI, I.I 619 From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.1988 of the central administrative tribunal Madras
Date of decision : 20-04-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1929/1990 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
820SCIENTIFIC ADVISER TO THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs S. DANIEL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1990] 2 S.C.R. 440
Judge Name: S. RANGANATHAN,K.N. SAIKIA
initiated against the respondents by the Divisional Superinten­ dents. The respondents challenged the disciplinary proceedings before the central administrative tribunal contending that they were without jurisdiction since the Director and the Divisional Superintending were A B c D E
Date of decision : 10-04-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1210/1980 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
821  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
MANJEET SINGH, UDC AND ORS. ETC. Vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPN. AND ANR. ETC. – [1990] 2 S.C.R. 119
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,M.M. PUNCHHI,K. RAMASWAMY
the interview-40% was made as basic limit for selection. The unsuccessful candidates challenged their rejection before the central administrative tribunal contending that the ·selection based on 40% marks in the interview was unjustified. Petitions were also filed by the successful candidates Benches of the Central Administrative ‘fribunals and on being clubbed G were disposed of by a common judgment dated 28th of April, 1989, by the Hyderabad Bench of the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal held: …( “We would direct in these cases that the respondents shall work out and
Date of decision : 22-03-1990 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/226/1986 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed | Direction Issue : Appeal allowed in part.
822STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs P.V. PAVITHRAN – [1990] 1 S.C.R. 746
Judge Name: S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN,K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY
. 4572, GA (SC. C) Department da_ted 5th September 1984. This writ petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench. The Tribunal G allowed the petition holding that the impugned order in G.0.Rt. No. 2930 dated 5th July 1985 is illegal and beyond the powers of the
Date of decision : 01-03-1990 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/359/1989 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
823  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs M.P. SINGH AND ORS. ETC. – [1990] 1 S.C.R. 604
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,R.M. SAHAI
. According to the appellant-Union, the service rendered dnring this r- period has to be deemed as ad hoc. Respondents being aggrieved filed a Petition before the central administrative tribunal . The Tribunal allowed the Petition and held that the seniority of AMEOT was to be H determined) and Assistant Military Estates Officers (Technical) (AMEOT), is slightly, unusually. That is why apart from correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the Tribunal ( central administrative tribunal , New Delhi) for re-determining seniority one of the issues debated was if this Court in
Date of decision : 27-02-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4397/1989 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
824AMAR DEO PRAKASH AND ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1990] 1 S.C.R. 450
Judge Name: S. RANGANATHAN,K.N. SAIKIA
. Dismissing the writ petitions with liberty to the Petitioners to move the central administrative tribunal , if so advised with fuller facts, this Court, C HELD: The inequity is not apparent. Having to deal with two different streams, differently placed, the Government has to find out an above which. according to the counsel for the petitioner introduced the principle of “chance seniority” was quashed by the central administrative tribunal by its order dated 5.2.1988. A copy of this order has not been made available to us. Secondly, consequent on the said decision of the Tribunal
Date of decision : 19-02-1990 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/11704/1985 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
825  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
K. JAGADEESAN Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS – [1990] 1 S.C.R. 444
Judge Name: M.H. KANIA,R.M. SAHAI
governed by the said Rules, which had been amended from time to time. One such amendment made in 1984 prescribed that for ) B promotion to the post of Director (M.E. ), a degree in Engineering was a requisite qualification. The appellant challenged before the central administrative tribunal , the requirement was totally irrele­ vant or unreasonable, it could not be said to be bad in law. [449B-C] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3607 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 25.4.88 of central administrative tribunal Hyderabad in T.A. No. 1185186. A B c D E F
Date of decision : 19-02-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3607/1989 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
826M.P. PRADHAN Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1990] 1 S.C.R. 410
Judge Name: KULDIP SINGH,V. RAMASWAMI
, the central administrative tribunal held that since the appellant was appointed on permanent basis to the E post of Copyist on 1.8.41, he did not come within the purview of Fonda· mental Right 56(c)(i). Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court, F appointed against one of them in the Collectorate, Etawah.” We are, therefore, of the view.that the Tribun.al erred in denying the benefit of Fundamental Rule 56 (c)(i) to the appellant. We allow c the appeal with costs and set aside tbe judgment of tbe central administrative tribunal under
Date of decision : 16-02-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1899/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
827UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs K.T. SHASTRI – [1990] 1 S.C.R. 20
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,P.B. SAWANT,K. RAMASWAMY
, E have preferred this appeal against the decision of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad Bench, holding that respondent K. T. Sh as try was entitled to remain in service upto the superannuation age of 60 years and was not liable to be retired at the alleged superan­ nuation age of 58
Date of decision : 12-01-1990 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4284/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
828  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs K.K. VADERA AND ORS. – [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 751
Judge Name: M.M. DUTT,S. NATARAJAN
1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.88 of the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad in 0.A. No. 427/1986. B. Dutta, ASG. (N.P.), C.V. Subba Rao, A. Subba Rao and P. Parmeshwaran for the Appellants. Harbans Lal and A.K. Mahajan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was October 16, 1985 or from the date they would actually assume (J charge of the posts. The respondents filed an application before the central administrative tribunal , Allahabad, claiming that they should have been promoted to the posts of Scientists ‘B’ with effect from July 1, 1984. The
Date of decision : 26-10-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4494/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
829  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
GOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARY Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 727
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,P.B. SAWANT,K. RAMASWAMY
/Battalions, and (iii) whether transfer of the staff from the Units/ Battalions to the Headquarters was done arbitrarily and without apply· ing any test.] [7328-CJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 3288 of 1988. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1986 of the central administrative tribunal at Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAW ANT, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated August 11, 1986, passed by the central administrative tribunal , Gauhati Bench rejecting the claim for parity in emoluments between the Upper Division Assistants and Lower Division
Date of decision : 25-10-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3288/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
830UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SHAIK ALI – [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 456
Judge Name: A.M. AHMADI,K.N. SAIKIA
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 3.10.1988/12.10.1988 of the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad in O.A. No. 307 of 1987. Anil Dev Singh, B. Parthasarthy, Hemant Sharma and C.V. Sobba Rao for the Appellants. Mrs. Kitty Kumaramangalam, Ms. Vijayalaxmi, Kailash Vasdev, P. Parmeshwaran and A. T .M. Sam path for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered bv AHMADI, J. The central administrative tribunal , Hyderabed by its order dated 3rd ‘October, 1988 held that the Divisional Railway Manager (BG) SC Railway
Date of decision : 17-10-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2413/1989 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
831  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs DR. S. KRISHNA MURTHY & ORS. ETC. ETC. – [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 275
Judge Name: M.M. DUTT,S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN
retrospective effect, the authority will have no power to frame any rule with retrospective effect. [280F] A. Janaradhana v. Union of India, [1983] 2 SCR 936, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. G 4068-70 of 1989 etc. etc. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.8.88 of the Central Administrative Tribunal , Bangalore in Appln. Nos. 991-993 of 1988. For the appearing parties: F G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Anil Dev Singh, .. U.0.J. v. S.K. MURTHY {DUTT, J.] 277 U.R. Lalit, C. V. Subba Rao, T.C. Sharma, Ms. A. Subhashini, C.S. Vaidyanathan, S.R’) and directed either against the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court or against the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore. The Tribunal has struck down the impugned rules, namely, rule 3(2)(d) of the Indian Forest Service (Regulation of Seniority
Date of decision : 26-09-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4068/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
832  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs H.N. KIRTANIA – [1989] 3 S.C.R. 397
Judge Name: K.N. SINGH,M.H. KANIA
Government officer was transferred from Calcutta to Jaipur by an order dated 14th March, 1985 and relieved of his duty the next day. He, however, tiled a writ petition before the High Court and obtained an interim injunction. The writ petition was subsequently transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal , which held that the order of transfer was not ma/a fide or unfair, and there was no ground for interfering with it. It, however, directed the appellants to pay all arrears of salary with allowances to the respondent and not to issue the release order unless all his emoluments were. 2942 G of 1989. From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.1987 of the Calcutta central administrative tribunal Court in T.A. No. 452’of 1987/C.0. 6078-W. of 1985. 397 H 398 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 3 S.C.R. A G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, T. C. Sharma and y·-‘ C. V. Subba Rao for the Appellants. B c Girish Chandra for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered: ORDER Leave granted. This appeal is directed against the order of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta, dated November 30, 1987. The respondent was posted as
Date of decision : 12-07-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2942/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
833  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA ETC. Vs PARMA NAND ETC. – [1989] 2 S.C.R. 19
Judge Name: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY,A.M. AHMADI,KULDIP SINGH
order of dismissal by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. Subsequently the writ stood transferred to the central administrative tribunal under the H 19 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R. A provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. The Tribunal examine the statutory framework. Section 4 of the Act provides for establishment of central administrative tribunal .. c as well as State Administrative Tribunal. It also provides power to constitute Benches of the central administrative tribunal . Sections 5 to 11 deal with the composition of
Date of decision : 14-03-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1709/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
834  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
P.L. SHAH Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [1989] 1 S.C.R. 224
Judge Name: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH,N.D. OJHA
No. 38 of ~. ~ From the Judgment and order dated 15.3.1988 of the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad in M.A. No. 49 of 1988. P.H. Parekh and Shishir Sharma for the Appellant. B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Indu Malhotra and C. V. Subba Rao for the Respondents on account of the order of suspension and in particular the orde.r fixing the subsistence allowance at 25 per cent of the salary which he was drawing at the time of suspension by the Order dated 6.5.1982, the appellant approached in the year 1988 the central administrative tribunal (Ahmedabad
Date of decision : 18-01-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/38/1989 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
835SCIENTIFIC ADVISOR TO RAKSHA MANTRI Vs V.M. JOSEPH – [1998] 1 S.C.R. 177
Judge Name:
respondent challenged the order before the central administrative tribunal , which allowed the claim of the respondent and direeted the appellants to reckon the period during which the respondent worked as a permanent Store Keeper prior to his transfer as a period of qualifying service for the) F G Union of India & Ors. v. C.N. Ponnappan, AIR (1996) SC 764 = (1996) 1 sec 524, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3749of1992. Frnm the Judgment and Order dated 23.2.88 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras High Court in O.A. No. 573/86. rvts. Sashi
Date of decision : 14-01-1989 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3749/1992
836  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SANTIRAM GHOSH AND ORS. – [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 754
Judge Name: M.M. DUTT,S. NATARAJAN
which was transferred by the Calcutta High Court to the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta. The Tribunal came to the finding that in recommending two levels of scale of pay the Board of Arbitrators had travelled beyond the terms of reference. Accord· ingly, the Tribunal set aside the the judgment of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench, Calcutta, whereby the Tri­ bunal set aside the Award of the Board of Arbitrators and directed the appellants to accord the benefit of the scale of pay of Rs.550-900 to the Scientific Assistants working in the Botanical Survey
Date of decision : 02-11-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
837  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SOMASUNDRAM VISWANATH & ORS. – [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 146
Judge Name: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH,N.D. OJHA
his absence the remaining members met and G made the recommendation. The lst Respondent was graded ‘good’ and was not put in the Select panel. Aggrieved by the said decision Respondent tiled a Petition before the central administrative tribunal , Jabalpur Bench, challenging the validity of the Memorandum which is apparently issued under Article 73 of the Constitution Is entitled to be treated as valid and binding on all B ,concerned. [I53B·Cl This Court does not agree with the decision of the central administrative tribunal that in the instant case, the proceedings of the Departmental
Date of decision : 22-09-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3273/1988 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
838  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
JAYANTI KUMAR SINHA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 5
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,M.N. VENKATACHALIAH
. He challenged the retirement order before the central administrative tribunal . It was contended on his behalf that he had a brilliant academic career and a clean record of service and that he had actually been interviewed for the post of Director during May­ June, 1986, and that on account of the C.V.S. Rao for the G _Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RANGANATH MISRA, J. This appeal by special leave and is directed against the decision of the central administrative tribunal , ._, “‘ 9 Hyderabad bench, dismissing the claim of the appellarif and rejecting
Date of decision : 16-09-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/658/1988 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
839CHIEF ENGINEER AND SECRETARY, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, FOR AND ON BEHALF OF CHANDIGARH ETC. Vs K.S. BRAR & ANR. ETC. – [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 797
Judge Name: M.M. DUTT,M.H. KANIA
17.9.87 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh in 0 .A. No. T-5/CH of 1987. c .Kapil Sibbal, G.L. Sanghi, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, P.N. Puri, R.K. Chopra and Ravinder Chopra for the Petitioners. V.C. Mahajan and S.C. Patel for the Respondents. The Judgment of
Date of decision : 01-09-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3099/1988 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
840  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NYADAR SINGH & ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 546
Judge Name: RANGANATH MISRA,M.N. VENKATACHALIAH
and 5.11.1986 in the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 103 of 1986. J.S. Bali and L.R. Singh for the Appellant in C.A. No. 3003 of 1988. K.M.K. Nair for the Appellant in C.A. No. 889 of 1988. Kuldi.p Singh, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao, C.V .S. Rao and dated· 8/9-4-1986 of the Cential Administrative Tribunal, Delhi, and the A order dated 29.10.1986 of the central administrative tribunal , Gujarat, respectively, ~ffirming the orders of the Disciplinary Authorities imposing on the petitioner and the appellant the penalty of reduction .in rank
Date of decision : 23-08-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3003/1988 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
841  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
S.K. CHAKRABORTHY AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 425
Judge Name: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI,L.M. SHARMA
matter before the central administrative tribunal and contended; (i) that B their posts could· not be declared as ex-cadre because vesJed rights which had accrued in their favour could not be affected, and (ii) they could not be treated differently from those of the Integral Coach Factory. This was SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This is an application for leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution, directed against the judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench (Justice Ashamukul Pal and Mr B. Mukhopadhyay) dated 8th December, 1986. The Tribunal had
Date of decision : 11-07-1988 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/3584/1987 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
842  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ETC. Vs HIRANYALAL DEV & ORS. – [1988] 3 S.C.R. 302
Judge Name: M.P. THAKKAR,N.D. OJHA
, Hlranyalal, respondent in both the ,,… E appeals, r.Ied a Civil Rule in the Guwahati High Court, which stood transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Guwahati. The Tribunal held respondent’s non selectio.n bad·iniaw on the ground that the Selection Committee had taken· iiito Order dated 17.2.1987 of the central administrative tribunal , Guwahati in Guwahati Case No. 225 of 1986(T). Kuldeep Singh, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao and P. Parameshwaran for the Appellants. Shankar Ghosh and S.K. Nandy for the Respondents. G The Judgment of the Court was
Date of decision : 22-03-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3016/1987 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
843  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs E. BASHYAN – [1988] 3 S.C.R. 209
Judge Name: M.P. THAKKAR,N.D. OJHA
officer’s report was not made available to the respon­ dent before the disciplinary authority passed the final order recording the finding of guilt against him. The central administrative tribunal held in favour of the respondent. A B c D In the special leave petition it was contended for the propriety. [2140-GJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Peti­ tion (Civil) No. 2725·of 1988 F From the Judgment and Order dated 12.11.1987 of the central administrative tribunal . New Bombay in Tr. Appln. No. 1of1986 G. Rama Swamy, Additional Solicitor General, A. Subba Rao and P
Date of decision : 11-03-1988 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/2725/1988 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
844  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
R. PRABHA DEVI & ORS. Vs GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS & ORS. – [1988] 3 S.C.R. 147
Judge Name: A.P. SEN,B.C. RAY
-ride it iu the matter of promotion to the nl’xt higher post. [157G-H; ISSA) CIVIL APPELLATE Nos. 2040-2042 of 1987 JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal From the Judgment and Order dated 11.2.1986 of the Central { Administrative Tribunal , New Delhi in Appln. Registration No. 4, 9 and 10 of 1985 ‘ D service in that grade in order to qualify themselves for being considered for promotion to the said Grade I. G This condition of eligibility as introduced by the 1984 amend- ment of the third proviso of sub-rule (2) of rule 12 has been questioned in the petitions before the central administrative tribunal which ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal is hereby affirmed and the appeals are dismissed without costs. >- G.N. Appeals dismissed.
Date of decision : 08-03-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2040/1987 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed
845  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs ALL INDIA SERVICES PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION & ANR. – [1988] 2 S.C.R. 697
Judge Name: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH,B.C. RAY
said Notification. [706F-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 897 of 1987 From the Judgment and Order dated 5.8.1986 of the central administrative tribunal , New Delhi in Regn. No. T-853 of 1985 (CWP No. 2709of1985). G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, P. Parmeshwaran prior to 1.1.1973 are entitled to payment of gratuity as a part of retirement benefits at the rates specified in the Notification No. 33/12/73-AIS (ii) dated 24.1.1975. F G This Jlppeal by special leave is filed against the decision of the central administrative tribunal dated August 5, 1986
Date of decision : 14-01-1988 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/897/1987 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
846S.P. SAMPATH KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1987] 3 S.C.R. 233
Judge Name: R.S. PATHAK,RANGANATH MISRA,V. KHALID,G.L. OZA,M.M. DUTT
central administrative tribunal the appropriate course would be to appoint a High Powered Selection •. Committee headed by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court to be nominated by the Chief Justice of India, while in the case of recruit­ ment to the State Administrative Tribunals, the High Powered
Date of decision : 05-05-1987 | Case Number : REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL)/520/1987 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
847  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
UNION OF INDIA Vs A.R. SHINDE & ANR. – [1987] 2 S.C.R. 339
Judge Name: M.P. THAKKAR,B.C. RAY
y -+ UNION OF INDIA v. A.R. SHINDE & ANR. FEBRUARY 19, 1987 [M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] central administrative tribunal Act, 1985: Director General AIR-Appointment of-By Government by transfer of deputation­ Whether valid-‘ I8 years’ of experience in a ‘supervisory capacity continuation was assailed before the central administrative tribunal by the first respondent, who was working as the Additional Director General, on the ground that though he fulfilled aU the requisite qualifications provided in the Rules for being considered for promotion to the post of the
Date of decision : 19-02-1987 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2732/1986 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
848TELECOMMUNICATION RESEARCH CENTRE SCIENTIFIC OFFICERS (CLASS I) ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [1987] 1 S.C.R. 1007
Judge Name: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH,K.N. SINGH
parties by name to these petitions, we are of the view that the first question should be left open to be decided by the central administrative tribunal . We aecordingly express no opinion on the said question. The second question relating to the grant of Special Pay requires + TELE. RESEARCH- ers according to the Recruitment Rules is left open to be agitate<! E before the central administrative tribunal . No costs. P.S.S. Petitions allowed.
Date of decision : 16-01-1987 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/3269/1982 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed
849  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
DIRECTOR GENERAL, TELECOMMUNICATION & ANR. Vs T.N. PEETHAMBARAM – [1986] 3 S.C.R. 828
Judge Name: M.P. THAKKAR,K.N. SINGH
APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. H 3141of1986 • -+ r/. D.G.,TELE. v. T.N. PEETHAMBARAM [THAKKAR, l.] From the Judgment and Order dated 6.3.1986 of the central administrative tribunal , Madras in Transferred Application No. 479 of 1986. G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, P
Date of decision : 19-09-1986 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3141/1986
850  English           हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer
NARENDER CHADHA & ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [1986] 1 S.C.R. 211
Judge Name: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY,E.S. VENKATARAMIAH
understand that the said writ petition has been transferred to the file of the central administrative tribunal and the said writ petition is still pending. We are not concerned here with ·the merits of the contentions urged by the contesting parties in those proceedings. We are concerned in this
Date of decision : 11-02-1986 | Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/2604/1985 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off
Service Matter CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Judgments Supreme Court of India

Service Matter CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Judgments Supreme Court of India

Advocate in Jabalpur – Lawyer in Jabalpur – Ajay Gautam Advocate Jabalpur

About MediumPulse Medium Pulse News

MediumPulse Medium Pulse News
This entry was posted in Delhi Advocate High Court Delhi Lawyer Supreme Court of India. Bookmark the permalink.