Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 12 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Agarwal vs Union Of India And Another on 18 May, 1993
6. By filing reply, the respondents have denied the case of the applicants, They have raised preliminary objections that these applications are not maintainable before this Tribunal. They have stated that the applicant Shri Virendra Kumar Verma in OA No. 1847 96, as per the averment made in the OA, was working as Store Keeper in Unit Canteen Station Headquarter, Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh). He had challenged the impugned order of termination dated 29,09.95 (Annexure A/1) before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior. It appears that the High Court directed the authorities to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity. Thereafter, order Annexure A/2 dated 17.10.95 was passed by terminating the services of the applicant with effect from 30th October, 1995. This order also the applicant has challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior, in Writ Petition No. 1741 of 1995. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed the said Writ Petition No. 1741/96 filed by the applicant Shri Virendera Kumar Verma, vide judgment and order dated 08.01.1996. Against the said order of Hon'ble the High Court, the applicant without approaching Hon'ble the Supreme Court, has filed this present OA (OA No. 184/96) on 21.05.96 before this Tribunal falsely alleging that he has been residing at Jodhpur, only because this Tribunal had held in OA No. 157/93 (Rajendra Jagarwal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.), that such employee in the Unit Run Canteens is a Government employees, and this Tribunal has jurisdiction. The respondents have stated that the applicant has given false address as if he is residing at Jodhpur. But in fact, before his termination, he was residing at Ward No. 23, Halka No. 963, Gurdwara Sanlar, Morar, Gwalior. His averment that he is residing at Jodhpur has been made with mala fide intention to invoke the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Since the applicant is not residing at Jodhpur, his application is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the subject matter of the O.A. is not within the territorial jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Therefore, the Application No. 184/96 is liable to be rejected.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Delhi Transport Corporation vs D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress on 4 September, 1990
5. Their principle contentions are that the impugned termination orders are illegal inasmuch as they are issued without any notice and opportunities to the applicants. Their further contention in O.A. No. 182/96 and 183/96 is that the impugned orders being stigmatic, could not have been passed without holding an enquiry. At any rate, Para 17 of the Standing Order vide Annexure A/3 (in OA Nos. 182/96 and 183/96), providing termination of an employee after giving 30 days notice or without such notice on payment of pay for a period of 30 days, is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and also as per the law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C Mazdoor Congress and Ors., 1991(1) SU 56 (SC),
Sarasamma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 31 October, 1995
7. Even in O.A. Nos. 182/96 and 183/96, the respondents have specifically stated in the reply that these 2 applications have been filed before this Tribunal, only because Hon'ble the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, vide its judgment and order dated 31.10.95 in Civil Writ Petition No. 12654 of 1993 (Sarasamma v. Union of India and Ors.), had held that the Canteen is not an instrumentality of the State, and not an authority
under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, instead of filing the OAs before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, the applicants in these 2 applications, have approached this Tribunal as if they are residing at Jodhpur, and in fact, these applicants are also not residing at Jodhpur. The respondents have specifically stated in the reply that the applicant in OA No. 182/96 is the resident of village Paksama, and his name was found in the voter's list at Sl. No. 697 in Part No. 56. Even he has been issued voter's identity card No. 165796 in village Paksama, which falls within Hasangarh Constituency of'Haryana Assembly. The copy of such list is filed at Annexure R/l. It is also staled that the applicant is also having his ration card at Paksama Village. Therefore, his contention that he is residing at Jodhpur, is totally false and untrue.
1