Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 19 (0.37 seconds)
Laxmidhar Gajendra vs Income Tax on 10 July, 2019 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs C.N. Ponnappan on 5 December, 1995

"From the facts set out above, it will be seen that promotion was denied to the respondent on the post of Senior Store keeper on the ground that he had completed 3 years of regular service as Store keeper on 7th June, 1980 and, therefore, he could not be promoted earlier than 1980. In coming to this conclusion, the appellants excluded the period of service rendered by the respondent in the Central Ordnance Depot, Pune, as a Store Keeper for the period from 27th April, 1971 to 6th June, 1977. The appellants contended that, since the respondent had been transferred on compassionate ground, on his own request to the post of Store Keeper at Cochin and was placed at the bottom of the Seniority list, the period of 3 years of regular service can be treated to commence only from the date on which he was transferred to Cochin. This is obviously fallacious inasmuch as the respondent had already acquired the status of a permanent employee at Pune where he had rendered more than 3 years of service as a Store Keeper. Even if an employee is transferred at his own request, from one place to another, on the same post, the period of service rendered by him at the earlier place where he held a permanent post and had acquired permanent status, cannot be excluded from consideration for determining his eligibility for promotion, though he may have been placed at the bottom of the seniority list at the transferred place. Eligibility for promotion cannot be confused with seniority as they are two different and distinct factors. This Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. C.N. Ponnappan, AIR 1996 SC 764= 1996(1) SCC 524, has held that, where an employee is transferred from one unit to another on compassionate ground and is placed at the bottom of the seniority list, the service rendered by him at the earlier place from where he has been transferred, being regular service has to be counted towards experience and eligibility for promotion."
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 76 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Balwinder Singh Matharoo S/O S. Gurdev ... vs Union Of India on 3 August, 2012

8. The applicant has referred to the orders of the Tribunal (Jodhpur Bench) in OA No. 522/2011, of Lucknow Bench in OA No. 315/2012 and of Principal Bench in OA No. 2406 of 2005. But copy of the orders of the Tribunal in above OAs has not been furnished by the applicant., who stated in the OA that these orders have been implemented by the respondents vide orders at Annexure A/4, A/5, A/6 and A/7. In reply, the respondents in the Counter have stated that in some cases the Department has challenged the order of the Tribunal in higher forum and that full facts are not readily available with the respondents. The order at Annexure-A/4 is the list of officials promoted and nothing has been stated if the service rendered in the station prior to inter-region transfer on own request has been counted or not. In the order at Annexure-A/5, it is mentioned that for serial no. 131, 132 and 133 have been promoted for year 2011-12 as an interim measure after counting service rendered in old region in terms of orders in OA No. 2406/2005 and another OA. It is further mentioned that the matter has been referred to CBDT and they will be liable for reversion if they will not be entitled for promotion and hence, it cannot be said that these promotions are final. Similarly, the order at Annexure-A/6 and order at Annexure-A/7 reveal that these cannot be treated to be final order of promotion for those who were allowed promotion as per the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 2406/2005. The applicant's counsel has submitted a copy of the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 338/2012 in the case of Balwinder Singh Matharoo & others vs. Union of India & Anr. in which it was held in case if the Inspectors of the Central Excise Department on inter- commissionerate transfer that the concerned Inspectors were entitled to the 5 service rendered in parent Commissionerate and the respondents were directed to grant them relevant benefits. It is not clear whether the position in the seniority of the concerned Inspectors was changed after taking into account the past service prior to transfer.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Shiba Shankar Mohapatra & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 12 November, 2009

15. As discussed earlier, the applicant should have challenged his position in the seniority as Tax Assistant in the Gradation list dated 31.3.2003 in which the respondent no. 5 was shown to be senior to the applicant. He should have also challenged his non-consideration for the post of Senior Tax Assistant in the DPC held after his joining in Odisha region. Further, as stated in his representation at Annexure-A/2, his claim was earlier rejected by the respondents in the year 2008, which was not challenged by the applicant within time stipulated under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. After remaining silent for all these years, the applicant has filed this OA, which is clearly barred by limitation in view of the judgments in the case of Shiba Shankar Mohapatra (supra) and Tarsem Singh (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 33 - Cited by 218 - B S Chauhan - Full Document

Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 12 November, 1973

"16. The question of entertaining the petition disputing the long standing seniority filed at a belated stage is no more res integra. A Constitution Bench of this Court, in Ramchandra Shanker Deodhar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 259, considered the effect of delay in challenging the promotion and seniority list and held that any claim for seniority at a belated stage should be rejected inasmuch as it seeks to disturb the vested rights of other persons regarding seniority, rank and promotion which have accrued to them during the intervening period. A party should approach the Court just after accrual of the cause of complaint.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 254 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Tilokchand Motichand & Ors vs H.B. Munshi & Anr on 22 November, 1968

While deciding the said case, this Court placed reliance upon its earlier judgments, particularly in Tilokchand Motichand v. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898, wherein it has been observed that the principle, on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay, is that the rights, which have accrued to others by reason of delay in filing the writ petition should not be 7 allowed to be disturbed unless there is a reasonable explanation for delay. The Court further observed as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 48 - Cited by 562 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document

State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Bhailal Bhai & Ors on 20 January, 1964

"We must administer justice in accordance with law and principle of equity, justice and good conscience. It would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set-aside after the lapse of a number of years..... The petitioners have not furnished any valid explanation whatever for the inordinate delay on their part in approaching the Court with the challenge against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of 1968. We would accordingly hold that the challenge raised by the petitioners against the seniority principles laid down in the Government Resolution of March 2, 1968 ought to have been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petition, in so far as it related to the prayer for quashing the said Government resolution, should have been dismissed."
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 829 - K C Gupta - Full Document
1   2 Next