Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 645 (3.04 seconds)
Documents citing S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999

Uoi & Anr. vs Pankaj Agnihotri on 22 July, 2010

16. Similar is the view taken by this Court in the cases of R.S. Makashi6 and Wing Commander J. Kumar7 which judgments have been followed by this Court in Madhavan case1. Hence, we do not think it is necessary for us to deal in detail with the view taken by this Court in those judgments. Applying the principles laid down in the above-referred cases, we hold the appellants are entitled to count the substantive service rendered by them in the post of Sub-Inspector in BSF while counting their service in the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police Force.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - P Nandrajog - Full Document

Shri Sc Sharma vs Union Of India Through on 23 September, 2014

11. From the above it is clear that the recruitment rules provide vide Note-2 to the Schedule attached thereto that the applicant should have rendered a minimum of ten years of regular service prior to 01.01.2006, the date from which the revised pay structure of the 6th CPC was implemented. To the contrary, we have seen that the claim of the applicant is that his services should be reckoned from 15.11.1999. He further submits that he worked in the post of JIO-II where his pay scale in the pre 5th CPC was Rs.975-1660 which has been subsequently upgraded to the scale of Rs.4000-6000 in the 5th CPC. The OM dated 29.05.1986 provides that in case of a government employee who is taken initially on deputation and absorbed later, his seniority in the grade in which he is absorbed would normally be counted from the date of absorption. However, where he has already been holding the same or equivalent grade on regular basis in his parent department, such regular service in the grade would also be reckoned for the purpose of fixing his seniority, subject to the condition that he would be given seniority from the date he has been holding the post on deputation or the date from which he has been appointed on regular basis to the same or equivalent grade in his parent department, whichever is later. However, as per the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.I. Rooplal and Another versus Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (supra), the clause whichever is later was substituted by clause whichever is earlier.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Wasi Ahmad Aged About 47 Years S/O Sri ... vs Union Of India Through Secretary ... on 7 May, 2016

In the case of Sub Inspector Roop lal and another Vs. Lt. Governor (supra) it is observed by the Honble Apex Court that the post of Sub Inspector in BSF was not equivalent to Sub Inspector of Delhi Police because pay scale of two posts were not the same. Hence the services in the parent Department cannot be counted for seniority in the present post. It is also observed that the equal pay scales was not the sole determinative factor while determining the equivalency of the two posts.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prakash Samantaray vs State Of Orissa And Others ...... ... on 4 January, 2022

30. Reliance is also placed on the observation in the above decision to the effect that, "the State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter se disputes between the employees." The above observations are of no application in the present context. Here there is no dispute between the two sets of employees. The cause of action in the present case arose when the government deleted the name of the Petitioner from the combined seniority list of Junior Assistants. Opposite Parties 3 to 9 are Junior Assistants in their own right, whereas the Petitioner has come on deputation as Junior Assistant de hors the Rules.
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - A K Mohapatra - Full Document

Mukul Bhatnagar vs Comptroller And Auditor- General Of ... on 13 October, 2025

"7. Add to the above, it may be recorded that it was specifically decided by the competent authority that only four years "regular" service is to be counted for grant of N.F.U., as a matter of policy, and self-restraint by the Tribunal in such policy matter is mandated by law. Accordingly we see no ground to take a different view than the view already taken by the Ernakulam Bench, especially, in view of the well settled proposition of law that the precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under judicial system as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SI Rooplal and another (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Atul Singh, Ips vs Indian Police Service on 28 September, 2021

"At the outset, we must express our serious dissatisfaction in regard to the manner in which a coordinate Bench of the tribunal has overruled, in effect, an earlier judgment of another coordinate Bench of the same tribunal. This is opposed to all principles of judicial discipline. If at all, the subsequent Bench of the tribunal was of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the coordinate Bench of the same tribunal was incorrect, it ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench so that the difference of opinion between the two coordinate Benches on the same point could have been avoided. It is not as if the latter Bench was unaware of the judgment of the earlier Bench but knowingly it proceeded to disagree with the said judgment against all known rules of precedents. Precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under our system. This is a fundamental principle which every Presiding Officer of a Judicial Forum ought to know, for consistency in interpretation of law alone can lead to public confidence in our judicial system. This Court has laid down time and again precedent law must be followed by all concerned; deviation from the same should be only on a procedure known to law. A subordinate court is bounded by the enunciation of law made by the superior courts. A coordinate Bench of a Court cannot pronounce judgment contrary to declaration of law made by another Bench. It can only refer it to a larger Bench if it disagrees with the earlier pronouncement."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Suman Shukla vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 May, 2013

10. Learned counsel for the respondents had argued that the applicants had themselves given their consent for absorption in DASS with an undertaking that seniority in DASS will be assigned to them below all the officials who had already been appointed in DASS cadre on regular basis prior to the date of their induction. She argued that having given their consent once they cannot go back on the same now. In this regard, she had also relied on the citations mentioned in the para 4 of this judgment. However, I find that the citation S.I Rooplal and Anr Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi and ors ( 1999 (7) Scale 466) and Arun Kumar & Ors Vs. Union of India & Ors, (JT 2007 (5) SC 181) are cases related to fixation of seniority of deputationist on their absorption and are not applicable to the present case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 22 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S Jammu And Kashmir State Power ... vs The Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 22 July, 2019

Corp. Ltd. Sri vs. ACIT Meadows (supra) and in Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory' (supra) and co-ordinate bench in Third Member's case i.e. HPCL Mittal Energy Ltd Vs Addl CIT' & 'HPCL Mittal Pipeline Ltd., Vs Addl CIT (supra) dealt with identical issue as involved in this case and therefore we while respectfully following the dictum of Apex Court laid down in S.I. Rooplal and Anr Vs Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary Delhi & Ors.(supra) qua following the principles of judicial discipline, rules of precedents and to maintain consistency in the decisions, are inclined to follow the aforesaid decisions.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pooja G vs National Institute Of Mental Health And ... on 24 March, 2026

This Court in the case of Tribhuvandas Purshottamdas Thakar v. Ratilal Motilal Patel, [1968] 1 SCR 455 while dealing with a case in which a Judge of the High Court had failed to follow the earlier judgment KOMA KOMAL RANI CAT Bangalore L RANI2026.03.26 17:36:59+05'30' 26 OA No.170/00561/2023/CAT/BANGALORE of a larger Bench of S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary... on 14 December, 1999 the same court observed thus:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next