Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.27 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India vs S. Vijaykumar And Ors on 20 September, 1994

Dr.P.Sayed Koya vs Union Of India Represented By The ... on 6 November, 2008

"4. On considering the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and on perusing the materials placed on record, this Court is of the view that the order of the Tribunal is not vitiated by any illegality. There are valid grounds and sufficient justification for the conclusion of the Tribunal that Island Special (Duty) Allowance can be claimed only by the Central Government Civilian employees who come from outside the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and who are posted at any Island coming under the Lakshadweep administration. This finding of the Tribunal is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in the decision reported in Union of India Vs. S.Vijayakumar, 1994 Suppl.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gadadhar Bania And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 May, 2005

This was also the view expressed by this Court in yet another case reported in Union of India v. S. Vijaykumar. In Vijaykumar the point for consideration was exactly identical, with regard to the entitlement to Special Duty Allowance to those employees/officers who are residents of North-Eastern Region itself. After considering the Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 and other related office memorandums indicated above, it was held that the purpose of the allowance was to attract persons from outside the North-Eastern Region to work in the North-Eastern Region because of inaccessibility and difficult terrain. In the facts and circumstances stated above the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be upheld and deserve to be set aside."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Gauhati Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kishanchand vs Union Of India on 29 September, 1995

Again, the reliance by Mr. Mittal on Union of India & Ors. Vs. S. Vijaykumar & Ors., is of no help to him. The denial of subsistence allowance was found to be on rational and had direct nexus with the intention behind granting that allowance to some and denying to others. The allowance was given to the people from outside in order to attract them to join service in North Eastern region. It was not given to the people of that Region. It was in this background that the Supreme Court observed that there was no discrimination because the said allowance was given to the outsiders for attracting their services and retaining them in North East Region. But that is not the case in hand.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Reghu vs The Indian Council Of Agricultural ... on 20 February, 2009

This was also the view expressed by this Court in yet another case reported in Union of India v. S.Vijayakumar. In Vijayakumar the point for consideration was exactly identical, with regard to the entitlement to Special Duty Allowance to those employees/officers who are residents of North-Eastern Region itself. After considering the Memorandum dated 14.12.1983 and other related office memorandums indicated above, it was held that the purpose of the allowance was to attract persons from outside the North-Eastern Region to work in the North-Eastern Region because of inaccessibility and difficult terrain. In the facts and circumstances stated above the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be upheld and deserves to be set aside."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shyamal Biswas vs Development Of North Eastern Region on 20 February, 2023

| 8. The two OMs from the Department of Expenditure, quoted by the respondents to deny the claim of the applicant on the ground that the provisions are admissible only to the employees of the Central Government, lay down the benefits to be provided to the employees who serve in the North Eastern Region on Central Government posts, These OMs do not specifically debar other Government employees on deputation to such posts for a fixed period, from these benefits. It stands to reason that an employee serving ander Central Government on a regular post even if on deputation, and who has opted for Central Government pay scale during the period of deputation, 5 GA 1471/2018 post irrespective of the fact that such incumbent is on deputation or not, It is t a particular post to an incumbent only on the ground that he is on deputation from State Government and substantially not a Central Government employee. To this extent, ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme parity in allowances with employees in the borrowing department performing similar duties.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1