Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 63 (0.84 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India & Ors. Etc. Etc vs Dr. S. Krishna Murthy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 26 September, 1989

Posted At vs Union Of India on 29 May, 2014

33. It is clear from the above highlighted sentence in the order of the Honble Apex Court that the direction given was not in rem, but was only in personam, in respect of the 10 co-applicants of Dr. S.K. Murti, who had not approached the Honble High Court challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in OA No.826/2013, ordering that similar order may be passed in respect of all similarly situated persons, despite the fact that they may not have approached the High Court questioning the order passed by the Tribunal and could have related only to the other earlier portion of the Apex Courts order, in which it was noted that the respondent S.K.Murti had filed OA 826/2003, which OA had been dismissed by the Tribunal, and against which a Writ Petition No14263/2004 had been filed by Dr.S.K. Murti. Therefore, the directions of the Honble Apex Court in respect of similarly situated persons related in personam to only 10 co-applicants of Dr. S.K.Murti in the OA 826/2003, and cannot at all be meant to extend in rem to the Scientists of all the Scientific Ministries and Departments, of all over the country, who were not at all party in the case of Union of India vs. S.K.Murti (supra), as appears to have been viewed by the Coordinate Benches, while deciding the OA No. 1111/2012 and OA No. 2296/2009.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ms.Sujata Arora D/O Shri S.K.Anand vs Union Of India on 3 July, 2014

11. After hearing these two cases together, we have given our anxious consideration to the facts and the legal issues involved. The details of the case of Dr. S.K.Murti (supra), whose case has been relied upon by the applicants, and with whom they have sought to be equated with, were recently discussed by the same Bench in its order dated 29.05.2014 in OA 1926/2013 in the case of A. Duraisami vs. Union of India & Another. Relevant portions of the said judgment and orders dated 29.05.2014 may be reproduced here beneficially:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Posted At vs Union Of India on 4 April, 2014

We, therefore, allow this OA and direct the Respondents to consider granting benefit of promotion to the Applicants as prayed for by them as extracted earlier in para 2 of the order from the due date with all consequential benefits of pay fixation and payment of arrears as directed by Honble Supreme Court in the case of S.K. Murti (supra). The aforesaid direction shall be implemented within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

V Anil Kumar vs Doordarshan on 15 April, 2025

83. Further, the private respondents submit the same lines of argument as other official respondents and argue that the respondents are governed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. E.Krishna Rao and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 107. But it is pertinent that the applicants were not parties therein. As discussed earlier that the said ruling may not curtail the rights of the applicants flowing out of IB(P)S Rules, 1990 Schedule V as discussed.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. S K Srivastava vs Union Of India on 5 November, 2014

In the above view of the matter, especially having regard to the fact that in S.K. Murti (supra) itself, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with this contention with respect to the applicability of the Office Memorandum dated 17th July, 2002, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal W.P. (C) 2357/2014 Page 3 cannot be faulted for having directed the grant of relief to the respondent- applicant from the date he became eligible. The writ petition is consequently dismissed as meritless.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Iqbal Hasan vs Union Of India on 21 February, 2014

Further, they have stated that when the case of the applicant was referred to DoP&T they advised that the benefit of the judgment in the case of S.K. Murti (supra) have been given only to the applicants of the case therein and have not been extended to others. On this basis, the respondents had rejected the representation of the applicant vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2012.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

H P Srivastava vs Ram Sewak Sharma on 11 May, 2016

3. Learned counsel for the applicant was satisfied as far as his claim for promotion upto the level of Scientist-E was concerned. Even for promotion to Scientist-F, learned counsel for the applicant did not dispute that as far as the years 01.01.2008 and 01.01.2009 were concerned, the claim of the applicant has been rightly considered by the respondents. However, as far as promotion to Scientist-G w.e.f. 01.01.2010 was concerned, learned counsel for the applicant argued that the order of the DoP&T reproduced above reveals that it has been turned down by ACC on the ground that the applicant had superannuated on 01.01.2014. Learned counsel argued that if the applicant was eligible to be granted promotion under Flexible Complementary Scheme from 01.01.2010, his superannuation on 01.01.2014 should not have been a hindrance for granting the same. Learned counsel also argued that the respondents have failed to 4 CP-257/2015 in OA-1156/2014 consider the provisions of Flexible Complementary Scheme and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.K. Murti in SLP(Civil)-6864/2011, which lay down grant of promotion from due date and not prospectively.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.N. Parekh And 3 Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And 5 Ors. on 13 June, 2006

In support of his submissions, Mr. Sinha has relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Union of India and Ors. v. Dr. S. Krishna Murthy and Ors. ; of Wing Commander, J. Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. ; Page 1548 of Prabhakar and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ; of Sanjay K. Sinha-II and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. ; of Santosh Kumar and Ors. v. G.R. Chawla and Ors. and of Prafulla Kumar Das and Ors. v. State of Orissa and Ors. .
Gujarat High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - R M Doshit - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next