Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.18 seconds)
Documents citing Duli Chand Jain And V.N. Prasad vs D.D.A. [Along With W.P.(C) 22657/2005 ... on 16 November, 2006

Lt. Col. Vijay Singh vs Uoi And Anr. on 13 August, 2015

6. Sh. Ankur Chhibber, learned counsel for the respondents urges that unlike the three armed forces, the DGQA is an organization with its own cadre structure. Those absorbed or permanently seconded from the Indian Army have significant differences in respect of terms and conditions; for instance, those seconded permanently cannot go back to the Army; their retirement age is fixed at 59 years, unlike in the case of Army officers, whose retirement age depends upon the rank held by them. Furthermore, the cadre of DGQA also comprises of civilian officers, which is not the same in the case of the Army or Navy. It was argued that the mere circumstance that the QASB did not assemble till a particular date, would not imply that the date of consideration and the eligibility conditions applicable as of a W.P.(C) 8427/2014 Page 4 particular date prior to the point of time of consideration would be relevant. Emphasizing that the Petitioner did not fulfill the pre-condition, i.e. as an officer who was not finally superseded, it was submitted that there is no right to be permanently seconded; no promotion is involved in such placement. It was further argued that unlike in V.K. Jain's case (supra), the precondition of not being superseded has existed from as far back as in 1993. He also points out to para 3 of the OM dated 12.05.2011 to say there was no error or mistake in regard to application of the eligibility terms in the present case. Mr. Chibber, learned counsel also argued that the so-called delay in holding the QASB has not admittedly been questioned as mala fide; the allegations of deliberate inaction are, therefore, baseless.
Delhi High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1