Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.06 seconds)
Documents citing Si Umesh Barthwal vs Gnct Of Delhi Through Lt. Governor on 1 June, 2010

Asi Sheeshpal (Pis No.28800376) vs Govt. Of Nct Delhi Through on 8 July, 2015

9. After having considered all the relevant documents and the earlier Orders of this Tribunal, and the Honble Delhi High Courts judgment, we find that the case of the applicant had been considered on merits in this Tribunals order dated 20.01.2010 in OA No.1290/2010, wherein a specific direction had been given that if the applicant is granted promotion, the same will be prospective in effect. That order stands as on today. Therefore, to that extent, there is nothing wrong or illegal in the impugned order, as passed by the respondents on 19.04.2011. As on today, we cannot re-appreciate the facts of the case of the applicant, which had been finally decided on 21.01.2011, and the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the instant case of the applicant is hit by the principle of res judicata is correct. Therefore, as on today, no direction different from that as given on 20.01.2010 can be issued by this Tribunal, by revisiting the case. If the applicant still seeks to avail the benefits at par with the Honble Delhi High Courts order dated 17.07.2013 in Umesh Barthwal vs. GNCT of Delhi and Others (supra), he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy, in accordance with law.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Pawan Kumar vs Comm. Of Police on 30 May, 2023

18. On perusal of the said Rule position, it cannot be disputed that the Ad-hoc promotion are based on vacancy as exists on the date of consideration of the cases of respective employees, who has claim for an out of turn promotion i.e. the date on which the Incentive Committee holds its meeting. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, attention is drawn to the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in batch of matter titled as Umesh Barthwal Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 5203/2012), (page 26) decided on 06.03.2013, the relevant para 12 and 13 are reproduced as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rahul Kumar Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 17 July, 2023

18. On perusal of the said Rule position, it cannot be disputed that the Ad-hoc promotion are based on vacancy as exists on the date of consideration of the cases of respective employees, who has claim for an out of turn promotion i.e. the date on which the Incentive Committee holds its meeting. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, attention is drawn to the decision rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi in batch of matter titled as Umesh Barthwal Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 5203/2012), (page 26) decided on 06.03.2013, the relevant para 12 and 13 are reproduced as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hc Udaibir Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi on 8 March, 2011

In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the parity of reasons, this OA is allowed in terms of the order in Umesh Barthwal case (supra) to the extent that the impugned order dated 29.6.2010 as at Annexure-1 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to consider the applicants case for out of turn promotion on the basis of the recommendations of the earlier Incentive Committee. Upon such consideration if the applicant is entitled for grant of promotion the same would be prospective in effect. This exercise shall be completed within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to cost.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 4 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Vivekanand Jha vs Comm. Of Police on 24 March, 2023

18. On perusal of the said Rule position, it cannot be disputed that the Ad-hoc promotion are based on vacancy as exists on the date of consideration of the cases of respective employees, who has claim for an out of turn promotion i.e. the date on which the Incentive Committee holds its meeting. On perusal of the aforesaid provision, attention is drawn to the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in batch of matter titled as Umesh Barthwal Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi (W.P.(C) No. 5203/2012), (page 26) decided on 06.03.2013, the relevant para 12 and 13 are reproduced as under:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Labh Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 16 December, 2015

In other words, no one can have right to promotion including OTP with effect from the date of availability of the vacancy and promotion become effective either from the date of DPC or assuming the charge of the post, whichever is later. We reject the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the view taken by Hon'ble High Court in para 12 of the order has the ramification that the promotion of the applicant should be antedated. Nevertheless, we are convinced that once in OA 2536/2011 this Tribunal had taken a view that the applicant is entitled to the benefit of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in WP (C) no.5444/2010 and finally in WP (C) No.5203/2012 etc. etc. (Umesh Barthwal Vs. GNCTD & Ors) decided on March 06,2013, it could be viewed that the recommendation of Incentive Committee regarding OTP should not be limited to the vacancy during the relevant year but should be held valid against the vacancy during subsequent years also and in implementation of the said judgment, the respondents have granted him promotion from retrospective date, similar benefits cannot be denied to applicant. Once the respondents could take a view that Mr. Umesh Barthwal was entitled to retrospective promotion on the ground that his co-team were given OTP from such date, the applicant cannot be denied similar benefits. In fact, parity should be drawn not in between co-team mate alone, but in between all those who are recommended for OTP by Incentive Committee. In other words, those in respect of whom the recommendation of Incentive Committee is approved earlier should be given preference in OTP and those who were recommended later should be considered for OTP thereafter.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajender Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 11 February, 2026

NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 12 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 3.12 In the case of Umesh Barthwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2013 (135) DRJ 372), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court disposed the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents (GNCT Delhi & Ors.) upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directing that the petitioners (police officers) would be granted notional promotion with effect from the date when vacancies ensued in the promotional posts and that they would be entitled to seniority in the promotional post by treating them as having been promoted from said date as per the rule applicable to inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits. The petitioners (police officers) had filed original applications to the Central Administrative Tribunal against the orders of the Commissioner of Police which denied them the approval for the grant of Out of turn Promotion for gallant acts of bravery and exceptional devotion to the duty. 3.13 The applicant was denied the opportunity to be heard despite repeated representations made by him for grant of permission to appear in orderly room. That therefore, the said orders of the Hon'ble L.G., Delhi are bad in law and liable to be set aside CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sub-Inspector (Exe.) Raj Kumar Atri vs Gnct Of Delhi on 7 July, 2011

4. We have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the applicant and perused the records. We have seen that at least five similar cases have been decided by this Tribunal earlier. They are (1) O.A. No. 3681/2009  SI Umesh Barthwal Vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi; (2) O.A. 1290/2010  HC Sheeshpal vs. Govt. of NCT Delhi; (3) OA 3398/2010  SI Neeraj Kumar Vs. GNCT Delhi; (4) O.A. 3404/2010  HC Udaibir Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Ors; (5) OA 2304/2010  HC Sukhbir Singh Vs. GNCT of Delhi & Anr; and (6) OA 1350/2010  Raj Singh & Ors. Vs. Commissioner of Police & Anr. In OA 3681/2009 filed by SI Umesh Barthwal, this Tribunal held that there was no reason to disturb the earlier finding by the Incentive Committee and to come to a contrary view on reviewing the same. Therefore, the respondents were directed to consider the applicants in that case for out of turn promotion to the rank of Inspector (Executive) and Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) respectively, as per the rank held by them in the feeder category on the basis of the recommendations of the earlier Incentive Committee and approval of the Commissioner of Police.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Karan vs Comm. Of Police on 31 October, 2019

6. The prayer in the OA is to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of out of turn promotion to the applicant. There is a serious doubt about the justifiability of such issues. The promotion which is claimed is not provided under the rules, nor is guided by executive instructions. It all depends upon the task assigned to the team and the amount of valor and courage exhibited by the members of the team. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Umesh Barthwal vs. GNCT of Delhi and Others W.P. (C) No.5203/2012 and others decided on 06.03.2013. That was more a case about discrimination, than the one adjudging the parameters for conferment of the benefit of out of turn promotion.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next