Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)
Mukeshkumar Mansukhbhai Solanki vs Union Of India & 4 on 28 July, 2017 cites

Union Of India & Ors vs N.R. Parmar & Ors on 27 November, 2012

The   excuse   on   the   part   of   the   Department   about   administrative  constraints  which have  come  in their way   and   seeking   opinion   of   the   Department   of   Legal   Affairs   about the situation which had arisen after decision in the   case of Rajiv Mohan being contrary to the judgment in the   case   of  Union   of   India   Vs.   N.R.Parmar   (supra)  and   clarification  sought  in this regard  by the Principal CCIT,   UP (West), according to us prima facie would not only be   misconceived   but   meritless   inasmuch   as,   the   decision   rendered   in   the   case   of   Rajiv   Mohan   was   qua   grievance   raised  by   an   individual,   which  had   no   apparent  conflict   with the law laid down by Their Lordships in the case of   Union of India Vs. N.R.Parmar (supra). Baring  vague   assertions   about   delay   based   on   above   case   in   the   application   for   vacating   interim   relief,   no   other   ground   appears.  The  Department  has tried  to take  shelter  under   duties to be performed for collection of taxes, a sovereign   function,   to   which   we   are   not   unmindful.   However,   at   various stages and forums, grievance of the eligible officers   like   the   petitioner   remains   unanswered   and   statements   were   made   before   this  Court   to   complete   the   exercise   as   early as possible.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 242 - J S Khehar - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs Hemraj Singh Chauhan & Ors on 23 March, 2010

In the case of the Union of India and Another vs. Hemraj Singh  Chauhan and ors reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290, it is observed and held  by   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   that   right   of   eligible   employees   to   be  considered for promotion is virtually a part of their fundamental right  guaranteed under Article 16 of the Constitution. It is further observed  that the guarantee of a fair consideration in matters of promotion under  Article 16 virtually flows from guarantee of equality under Article 14 of  the Constitution. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has  also observed that both the Central and State Government are to act as a  model employer which is consisting with their Rule in a welfare State.  Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court though the statutory mandate of a  cadre   review   exercise   every   five   years   is   qualified   by   the   expression  "ordinarily",   the   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   has   held   that   statutory   duty  which is cast on the State Government and the Central Government to  undertake   cadre   review   exercise   every   five   years   is   ordinarily  mandatorily subject to exceptions which may be justified in facts of the  given case. It is observed that however lethargy, inaction and sense of  responsibility cannot fall within the category of just exceptions.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 203 - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Hindustan Development Corpn. And Ors on 15 April, 1993

8. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the  aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand inaction on the part  of the department in not revising the seniority list in the cadre of ITO  has   affected   the   right   of   the   petitioners   to   consider   their   case   for  promotion.   The   legitimate   expectations   of   the   petitioners   of   being  considered   for   promotion   have   been   defeated   by   the   act   of   the  department   (inaction   on   the   part   of   the   department).   Unreasonable  inaction on the part of the department in not revising the seniority list in  the  cadre of ITO has stood   in the  way of the  petitioners  chances of  promotion   from   being   fairly   considered   when   it   is   due   for   such  consideration   and   the   delay   has   made   them   ineligible   for   such  consideration. Not only that indemnify granting of promotion to the post  of   ACIT   on   ad   hoc   basis   to   some   of   the   juniors   has   resulted   into  discriminatory   treatment   which   is   violative   of   Article   14   of   the  Constitution   of   India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 26 - Cited by 545 - G N Ray - Full Document

Kamal Singh Kanhaiyalal Parihar Son Of ... vs Union Of India And Others on 8 April, 2010

9.0. Now so far as the request made on behalf of the Department to  permit the Department to fill up the post of ACIT by way of   ad hoc  promotion  by permitting  them to operate select list pre­N.R. Paramar  (Supra) decision  is concerned, the  aforesaid cannot be accepted. It is  required to be noted that as such earlier such prayer of the department  has   been   rejected   twice   by   this   Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 43 - A G Masih - Full Document

Sanjiv Mahajan And Anr., Pankaj Saxena ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 25 September, 2002

15.   Some   direct   recruits   again   approached   the   CAT,   Principal Bench by filing Original Application no.2307   of 1999 (Sanjeev Mahajan & Ors. vs. Union of India &   Ors.)   alleging,   that   while   drawing   the   seniority   list   dated   8.2.1999,  the   Department   of  Income  Tax  had   not   applied   the   quota   and   rota   principle.
Delhi High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Ramchandra Dayaram Gawande vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 May, 1996

In  the case of Ramchandra Dayaram Gawande vs. Union of India reported  in 1996(10) SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme has observed that though no  employee has a right to promotion, but has right to be considered for  promotion according to the Rules. It is observed and held that   every  incumbent   of   a   substantive   post   in   lower   cadre   has   a   legitimate  expectation   for   promotion   and   to   be   considered   for   promotion   in  accordance with the Rules. It is further observed by the Hon'ble Supreme  Court in the said decision that preparation of selection list in accordance  with the appointment by promotion Regulations is a precondition which  requires to be prepared every year. It was held to be a mandatory duty.  It is further observed that it subserves the object of the Rules and affords  Page 25 of 30 HC-NIC Page 25 of 30 Created On Sat Aug 12 02:35:16 IST 2017 C/SCA/4720/2017 CAV JUDGMENT an equal opportunity to promotee officers to reach higher echelons of  the service. It would inculcate dedicated service assiduously discharging  the duties with integrity, honesty, exhibiting ability, straight forwardness  with missionary zeal of self confidence. It is further observed that failure  to   prepare   the   list   and   accord   chances   of   promotion   would   inhibit  efficacy in service and generate dishonesty and manipulation.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document
1