Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 249 (1.28 seconds)
Documents citing Narender Chadha & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 February, 1986

Miss Jyoti Ellamrao Kale vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Miss Kirti N Betalwar vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shishir Janardhan Wasu vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kashinath Bhitkar vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Janannath Ganvir vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Vaishali Narayan Umredkar vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ram Mahadeo Dhakate vs Revenue Cbdt on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Vasantrao Paunikar vs M/O Finance on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanjay Ghanshyam Mahajan vs M/O Finance on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hemraj Ramchandra Tembhekar vs M/O Finance on 7 July, 2023

7.4 It has been submitted that the applicant has filed on record at Annexure A-6 copies of the appointment orders at page Nos.68 - 69 and his transfer orders at Annexure A-7 page Nos.70-71, in which there is no mention of Scheduled Tribe. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents is misleading and far from the truth. It has been further submitted that the appointment orders filed on record at Annexure A-6 (Pages 68-69) do not show Scheduled Tribe and in each and every DPCs when the promotions are 34 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 granted, atleast 3 to 5 years confidential reports/APARs are reviewed and taken into consideration by the DPCs with bench mark fixed and the employees who come up the required bench marks and fit only those are selected for promotions which is with seniority-cum selection or seniority-cum fitness. In view of this, contention raised by the respondents' department that no promotions are given on the basis of the selection to the applicant is totally misleading and cannot be relied. 7.5 It has been submitted that rules of review DPCs do not allow the respondents' department to issue reversion orders of employees that too reducing their post three ranks lower than the present rank nor such orders/directions have been given by this Tribunal in the order dated 30.11.2013 and no such eventualities about mass reversions reducing the applicant by 3 ranks of the permanent employees continuously holding regular promotions years together for the last more than10 to 15 years was shown in their reply by the respondents' department before this Tribunal in the allegation in respect of OA No.2181/2013. Had such eventuality of reversions of employees consequent on recasting and preparing the post-based 35 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 rosters from the year 1997 till date was expressed before this Tribunal by the respondents' department at the stage of deciding the matter in OA No.2181/2013, either this Tribunal or any of the concerned respondents including the private parties/respondents would have made objections or accepted provided the reversions must have been in accordance with law without affecting the service career of any of the employees and by creating supernumerary posts as per the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgment dated 11.02.1986 in the case of Narender Chadha Vs. Union of India (supra) followed in the judgment dated 11.12.1987 in the case of Karan Singh Vs. Union of India and mass reversions of the employees including the applicant would not have been punitive. But to avoid creation of supernumerary posts, the respondents' department deliberately with malafide intention suppressed/not disclosed the points of apprehension of reversions of the employees in their statement before the Tribunal in OA No.2181/2013. In view of the above facts, the reversion of the applicant done in the impugned order is 36 OA Nos.2103, 2104, 2112, 2113, 2114, 2115, 2116, 2117, 2145 of 2020; 2067, 2069, 2078, 2070, 2088, 729 of 2021; 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 153, 163, 197, 198, 199 of 2022 liable to be quashed and set aside with heavy examplary cost in the interest of justice.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next