Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.23 seconds)
Suresh Kumar Singla vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 29 November, 2024 cites

Yudhvir Singh Janjua vs State Of Punjab on 28 March, 2018

3 did not ask for any objections from any Sr. DAO by initially issuing tentative seniority list. and the said seniority list of Sr. DAOS Punjab Cadre was circulated only in June/July 2016 by the official respondents. The applicant moved a representation dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure A-6) to the respondent no. 3 to fix the seniority of the applicant on the post of Sr. DAO by applying Principle of "catch up. Before making representation, the applicant even requested the respondent no.3 personally to reframe the seniority list of Sr. DAOs by applying Principle of "catch up". However, the respondent No.3 rejected the representation of the applicant vide impugned order dated 01.05.2017 stating that though the case of "Ajit Singh Janjua Vs. State of Punjab" is applicable in the present case but as per rules the applicant is not entitled to be declared senior to the private respondents by applying Principle of "Catch up" (Annexure A-2).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - R Gupta - Full Document

M.Nagaraj & Others vs Union Of India & Others on 19 October, 2006

6. The National Commission for Scheduled Castes New Delhi after the judgment of M. Nagraj Vs Union of India, collected the quantifiable data about position of representation of Scheduled Caste candidates in all the State Government, services and Central Government services and found that the ratio of Scheduled Caste candidates is still less as compared to their population. The seniority list dated 01.03.2016 of Sr. Divisional Accounts Officers of Punjab Cadre has been rightly prepared by the Respondent No.3 duly getting approved from Respondent No.2 as per rules, 11 since the Principal of 'Catch up' has been nullified vide Government of India, DOPT OM dated 21.01.2002 (Annexure A-4). However the applicant had become Junior on 13.10.1995, 03.11.1995 and 04.09.1996, when the Respondent No.4 to 6 were promoted as Divisional Accounts Officer-II and the applicant kept on sleeping at that time. Applicant knew that the Principal of 'Catch up' was not applicable upon him. Now on the verge of his own retirement and retirement of respondent no 6 (as on dated 30.04.2018) and after the retirement of respondent No.4 and 5, the applicant knowingly filed instant time barred O.A after a gap of 21 years. The promotions of Respondent No.4, No.5 and No.6 were rightly approved by the Respondent No.2 and only office order of Promotions were issued by the Respondent No.3 as per Government, of India instructions/guidelines on reservation policy of scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories employees under the directions of Constitution of India and for these promotions the Applicant was very well known from the year 1995. Respondents were promoted as DAO II in the year 1995 & 1996 respectively before the applicant they became senior to the applicant for all times to come. Principal of 'Catch up' was not applicable at that time.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 793 - S H Kapadia - Full Document

Anupam Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India on 12 March, 2019

In view of the above, as discussed in detail by this Tribunal in the case of Anupam Yadav & Ors. (supra), we find merit in the O.A. We are of the view that seniority list of Senior DAO Punjab Cadre as on 01.03.2016 (Annexure A-1), impugned orders dated 01.05.2017 (Annexure A-2) and dated 14 15.05.2017 (Annexure A-3) need to be set aside and to be recast as per principle of catch up rule.
Jharkhand High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S N Prasad - Full Document
1