Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.22 seconds)Section 5 in The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
V.P. Shrivastava And Ors vs State Of M.P. And Ors on 2 February, 1996
In this regard, the applicant has further relied upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of V.P. Srivastava versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [JT 1996 (2) SCC 374]; A. Janardhana versus Union of India and Others [1983 (2) SCR 936]; and OM dated 13.04.1998 (para 18.4.3) that where a junior has been promoted, senior should be promoted immediately and if there be no vacancy, the junior-most officiating person should be reverted to accommodate the senior.
A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983
In this regard, the applicant has further relied upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of V.P. Srivastava versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [JT 1996 (2) SCC 374]; A. Janardhana versus Union of India and Others [1983 (2) SCR 936]; and OM dated 13.04.1998 (para 18.4.3) that where a junior has been promoted, senior should be promoted immediately and if there be no vacancy, the junior-most officiating person should be reverted to accommodate the senior.
Raj Kumar Jha vs Union Of India on 21 September, 2012
The learned counsel for the applicants has been at pains to emphasize that the expression in the order of seniority of that service as used in the Regulation, 1955 relates to the current seniority in the service of the cadre and not the seniority either in the entry grade or selection grade. An officer must fulfill both the requirements of eligibility criteria, i.e., minimum qualifying service and seniority in the service/cadre. The applicants in OA No.3393/2013 have submitted that the impugned list is erroneous only to the extent that some officers in JAG-II in DANICS have been shown senior to the officers who are in higher pay grade/pay band in JAG-I. Therefore, promotion or induction of officers on the basis of impugned list would be in contravention of Regulation 5(2) of the Regulations, 1955. The applicants have further relied upon the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Raj Kumar Jha versus of India [2013(200) DLT 127]. In their rejoinder application, they have referred to the reply submitted before the Chennai Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 135/2008 wherein the respondent no.1 had taken the stand that drawing of salary for eligibility shall be the basis of current seniority. The respondents, the applicants submit, cannot approbate and reprobate simultaneously, and have assailed the MHA letter dated 21.05.2013 addressed to the UPSC for the purpose of consideration of SCS officers for induction into IAS i.e. selection grade, and not as JAG-I/JAG-II as absolutely baseless and against the Regulations. In the rejoinder application, the applicants have further submitted that one SKS Yadav, one of the affected parties, has already been impleaded in the OA in a representative capacity. The applicants have also relied upon the recommendations of the 6th CPC holding that the grade pay shall be the determining factor for seniority.
Prabodh Verma And Others, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others. Etc on 27 July, 1984
In this context, we may refer with profit to the authority in Prabodh Verma and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [1984 (4) SCC 251], wherein a three-Judge Bench was dealing with the constitutional validity of two Uttar Pradesh Ordinances which had been struck down by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court on the ground that the provisions therein were violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India.
Balram Singh Yadav @ Balram Yadav vs Abhay Kumar Singh on 13 May, 2014
The above decision is supported by a more recent judgment in the case of Balraj Singh Yadav @ Balraj Yadav versus Abhay Kumar Singh [MANU/SC/0502/2014 decided on 13.05.2014] wherein the non-joinder of parties was one of the preliminary issues.