Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing The Union Of India vs Md Sikandar Ali on 23 April, 2012

Rajendra Singh vs M/O Urban Development on 27 January, 2016

In Union of India vs. Md. Sikandar Ali (supra) the Hon'ble High Court of Madras did not accept the contention of the petitioners - department that the pendency of litigation and non- convening of DPC had caused the delay in promotion and held that for the delay caused on the side of the petitioners the respondents cannot be blamed. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal ordering regularisation of the respondents from the date they were given ad hoc promotion.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Subhash Chandra Tripathi & Ors vs Directorate General, Indo Tibetan ... on 30 April, 2025

15. Mr. Sagar Saxena, arguing for the promotee ACs, adopts the reasoning contained in the impugned Order dated 18 November 2020, whereby the petitioners' representations were rejected. He cites the 15 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2812 16 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1598 17 (1997) 1 SCC 111 Signature Not Verified W.P.(C) 4506/2021 Page 14 of 21 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:30.04.2025 16:30:05 judgment of the High Court of Madras in UOI v Mohd Sikander Ali18 and also relies on para 6.4.1 of the DOPT OM dated 10 April 1989, which reads thus:
Delhi High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Rajendra Devidas Bhavsar vs Defence Research & Development ... on 21 March, 2023

"i. Direct the Respondents No 1 to 5 to consider the applicant for the promotional & consequential benefits which are attached with the post of SSO-II keeping in view the precedence by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in The Union of India vs. Md. Sikandar Ali, Madras High Court, April 23 2012 and vide Order no.F.NO.22011/3/2013 Estt.(D) dated 15.11.2018. ii. As per rule 16 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This Tribunal/Court may direct Ex Parte Order if where on the date fixed for hearing the application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant appears and the respondent does not appear when the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion adjourn the hearing, or hear and decide the application EX-PARTE iii. Grant such other relief deemed fit having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V Thamilselven vs Drdo on 21 March, 2023

"i. Direct the Respondents No 1 to 5 to consider the said applicant for the Regular/Notional/Retrospective promotion and consequential benefits which comes with the post of SSO-II, keeping in view the attached Oms and established precedence by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in The Union of India vs. Md. Sikandar Ali, Madras High Court, April 23 2012, Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in P.C. Rajalakshmi vs. Union of India on 5 February, 2020 & Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sahadeva Singh V. UOI, W.P.(C) 5549/2007, 2012 SSC Online Del 1199 ii. (As per rule 16 of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987: This Tribunal/Court may direct Ex Parte Order if where on the date fixed for hearing the application or on any other date to which such hearing may be adjourned, the applicant appears and the respondent does not appear when the application is called for hearing, the Tribunal may, in its discretion adjourn the hearing, or hear and decide the application EX-PARTE) iii. Grant such other relief deemed fit having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case."
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1