Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.67 seconds)Director General Of Posts & Ors vs B. Ravindran & Anr on 8 November, 1996
The Line Mistry Trade was eligible for
promotion to the grade of Chargeman in the scale of Rs.5000-
8000. Thus in the OMHE trade the same hierarchy existed as
required for the application of the provision of para 3 of the
circular dated 20.05.2003. The respondents have therefore
wrongly denied the benefit of that circular to the applicant with
effect from 01.01.1996. He referred to Supreme Court's judgment
in Director General of Posts and others vs. B.Ravindran and
another, 1997 (1) SCC 641, where it was held that the
respondents could not have, under the guise of a clarificatory
order, taken away the right which had accrued to such employee
5 OA No.1508/2006
by the main order. In this case also by issuing some clarificatory
order the applicant cannot be denied his legitimate claim of
seeking the benefits of circular dated 20.05.2003.
Prakash Chand Nahta vs Union Of India And Ors. on 2 August, 2000
He also
referred to Full Bench judgment in Shri Parkash Chand vs.
Union of India &ors., 2005 (2) ATJ 617 that clarification cannot
take away their right which has been accorded by the main
rules/scheme.
1