Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.30 seconds)
Phanikant Mishra S/O Vijay Kant Mishra vs Union Of India Through on 30 August, 2011 cites

Som Prakash Rekhi vs Union Of India & Anr on 13 November, 1980

The only direction that thus can be issued by this Tribunal is to constitute a review DPC for considering the case of the applicant for promotion and if he is found fit and even recommended for promotion, not to do so, as the applicant is once again under suspension. This would be an exercise in futility as it would not give any advantage to the applicant, and, therefore, there is no need to issue even this direction. We may mention that there were absolutely no arguments raised whatsoever on behalf of the applicant to show that despite his being under unchallenged suspension, on opening of the sealed cover, and if so recommended by the DPC, he shall have to be promoted. This Tribunal had an occasion to deal with instructions of 1988 and 1992 in OA No.1185/2007 in the matter of Om Prakash v Union of India, decided on 3.6.2008, wherein we held that Para 7 of the instructions, be it the instructions of 1988 or 1992, would be applicable only with regard to circumstances enumerated in para 2, and no others. We are of the firm view that sealed cover procedure can be adopted only in circumstances enumerated in para 2 of instructions of 1992, and even if the circumstances as mentioned therein may surface after the DPC might have cleared a government servant for promotion, he may yet not be promoted, as in that event it has to be considered to be a case of deemed sealed cover procedure. It is a different matter that in the case aforesaid the circumstances in which the case of the applicant therein could be kept in sealed cover were not in existence, whereas in the present case, as mentioned above, the applicant is under suspension and circumstances under which his case could be kept in sealed cover are in existence even as on date.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 406 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Shiv Chander Kapoor vs Amar Bose on 28 November, 1989

In Shiv Chander Kapoor v Amar Bose [(1990) 1 SCC 234] it was held that it is for the person assailing validity of an order to get such a declaration from a proper forum in proper proceedings. The facts in short leading to the conclusion as mentioned above reveal that section 21 of the Rent Act permits creation of a tenancy for limited period where the landlord does not require the whole or any part of premises for a particular period, and it is to be let for residence. The said provision further states that if on expiry of the said period the tenant does not vacate such premises, then notwithstanding anything contained in section 14 or in any other law, the controller may on an application by the landlord place the landlord in vacant possession of the premises by evicting the tenant and every other person who may be in occupation of such premises. The Controller grants permission for creation of tenancy for a limited period on being satisfied that that the landlord does not require such premises for a limited period only, and the said premises is to be let as a residence in terms of an agreement in writing between the landlord and the tenant. When the tenant would not vacate the premises despite the limited tenancy period and took the plea that the Controller had not satisfied himself with regard to the requirement of limited tenancy, it was held that such a declaration has to be obtained.
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 45 - J S Verma - Full Document

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

10. Learned counsel representing the applicant would not cite any judicial precedents to the contrary to support his contention. There is reference to some judicial precedents mention whereof we shall make hereinafter, but on the crucial question for determination, as mentioned above, there are practically no arguments. We are of the considered view that when the case of the applicant for consideration of his promotion came up before the DPC, he was under suspension through a valid order, and unless his continued suspension after the stipulated period was not declared to be illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same cannot be said as if non-existent. The learned counsel for the applicant cited decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India & others v K. V. Jankiraman & others [(1993) 23 Administrative Tribunals Cases 322], Union of India & others v Sangram Keshari Nayak [(2007) 6 SCC 704] and Union of India & others v Dipak Mali [SLP(C) No.6661 of 2006, decided on 15.12.2009]. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law evidenced through the said judgments. Most of the judgments deal with the circumstances under which case of an employee can be kept in sealed cover, and/or consequences of not reviewing order of suspension within the stipulated time. The same may not be relevant for purposes of deciding the controversy involved in present case. Surely, continuation of suspension of an employee after the stipulated period, if no review is done, would be illegal, but that would not automatically mean that the same shall be considered as if non-existent at the time when his case may have come up for consideration for promotion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Union Of India & Ors vs Sangram Keshari Nayak on 27 April, 2007

10. Learned counsel representing the applicant would not cite any judicial precedents to the contrary to support his contention. There is reference to some judicial precedents mention whereof we shall make hereinafter, but on the crucial question for determination, as mentioned above, there are practically no arguments. We are of the considered view that when the case of the applicant for consideration of his promotion came up before the DPC, he was under suspension through a valid order, and unless his continued suspension after the stipulated period was not declared to be illegal by a court of competent jurisdiction, the same cannot be said as if non-existent. The learned counsel for the applicant cited decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India & others v K. V. Jankiraman & others [(1993) 23 Administrative Tribunals Cases 322], Union of India & others v Sangram Keshari Nayak [(2007) 6 SCC 704] and Union of India & others v Dipak Mali [SLP(C) No.6661 of 2006, decided on 15.12.2009]. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law evidenced through the said judgments. Most of the judgments deal with the circumstances under which case of an employee can be kept in sealed cover, and/or consequences of not reviewing order of suspension within the stipulated time. The same may not be relevant for purposes of deciding the controversy involved in present case. Surely, continuation of suspension of an employee after the stipulated period, if no review is done, would be illegal, but that would not automatically mean that the same shall be considered as if non-existent at the time when his case may have come up for consideration for promotion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 180 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1