D Nanaji vs M/O Defence on 5 April, 2019
e. Applicants have also cited the Hon‟ble Supreme court
observation in Sushma Mutreja v U.O.I reported in CA 4995-
4996 wherein it was held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.78 seconds)Documents citing
Sushma Mutreja vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 August, 2001
J.T. Sulaxan Rao And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 17 April, 2007
95. Sushma Mutreja's case (supra) is distinguishable on the ground that Rules 11 and 12 ibid were existed, which had barred counting of such seniority and an observation in the decision as to when a person is brought from one cadre to another has to be treated in the lowest in the cadre, no seniority rules of 1986 were in existence and as the administrative extractions having force of law has not been considered therein, in a peculiar fact situation, the order would be per incuriam to the present cases and is distinghishable as well.
Shri Rajinder Prasad Sharma vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi on 19 January, 2012
In the case of Sushma Mutreja Vs. UOI & Others (AIR2001 Supreme Court 2452), Honble Supreme court viewed that when a person is brought from one cadre to other and joins a new cadre then he must be treated to be lowest in the cadre on that date. In DOP&T O.M. No. 22011/7/86- Estt. (D) dated 3.7.1986, it is clearly mentioned that in case in which absorbee are not strictly in public interest, the transferred officers will be placed below all officers appointed regularly to the grade on the date of absorption.
P.Shanmugha Priya vs State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By on 11 March, 2014
16.It is to be remembered that re-drawing of a seniority or gradation list without any reason was an arbitrary one in Sushma Mutreja V. Union of India and others, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 2452.
The State Of Tamil Nadu vs Dr.S.Revwathy on 12 December, 2017
In fact, 'Redrawing of a Seniority' or 'Gradation List', without
any reason was held to be an ordinary one, as per decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in SUSHMA MUTREJA v. UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 2001 SC
2452.
S Thiruvalluvar vs M/O Finance on 17 September, 2025
8. The main contentions of the respondents are that (i)
Recruitment Rules cannot be challenged unless there is arbitrariness,
discrimination or malafide. (ii) Regarding seniority, it is contended that
under merger, the preparation of common seniority list is a logical and
necessary administrative step. Further relative seniority may be
23 OA 59/2019
redrawn following merger or restructuring unless any statutory rule
prohibits it. To add strength to this argument they relied upon the
judgment reported in [1977 (3) SCC 27]. The method of inter-se
seniority adjustment is rational, non-arbitrary and followed guidelines
laid down by the DOPT Oms. As per the DoP&T's O.M.No.20020/7/80-
Estt. (D) dated 29.05.1986 OM.No. 20011/1/2000-Estt (D) dated
27.03.2011, seniority will be allowed only from absorption date in the
Assistant cadre and since the applicant is absorbed as Assistant w.e.f
25.04.2011 he has been granted seniority from the said date whereas,
R-6 is absorbed as Recovery Inspector (Assistant Cadre) on
01.07.2007 he has been granted seniority w.e.f 01.07.2007. (iii) The
applicant was subsequently promoted to the post of Section Officer on
01.04.2022 and he superannuated on 30.04.2022 and hence he
cannot be granted any retrospective promotion either notional or
otherwise.
H.Durgesh vs Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 28 October, 2022
11. Further in the case of Sushma Mutreja Vs. Union of India and
others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
Md. Sadulla vs Southern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 28 October, 2022
11. Further in the case of Sushma Mutreja Vs. Union of India and
others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
J.P. Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 11 May, 2012
7. At this stage, we wish to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sushma Mutreja v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 2452, whereby the Apex Court has held that when a person is brought from one cadre to the another and joined a new cadre then he must be treated to be lowest in the cadre on that date. As already stated above, it is not the case of the applicants that they have been placed juniors to those persons who were not even borne in that cadre when the merger took place. In this case the merger took place in the year 2008 and applicants have been placed in the Select Panel of 2007 at the bottom seniority list.
J.P. Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 11 May, 2012
7. At this stage, we wish to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sushma Mutreja v. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 2452, whereby the Apex Court has held that when a person is brought from one cadre to the another and joined a new cadre then he must be treated to be lowest in the cadre on that date. As already stated above, it is not the case of the applicants that they have been placed juniors to those persons who were not even borne in that cadre when the merger took place. In this case the merger took place in the year 2008 and applicants have been placed in the Select Panel of 2007 at the bottom seniority list.