Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Shri A. K. Rastogi vs Union Of India Through on 19 October, 2011 cites

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

3. Shri V. K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant would submit that as the applicant was fully exonerated of the charges, the interregnum period from 18.04.2004 to 7.11.2005 should have been regularized appropriately. He places his reliance on the judgments of this Tribunal in the case of A. R. Alli and Another versus Union of India and Another (OA No.460/1990 decided on 8.12.1995 by CAT Bombay Bench), and the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others versus K. V. Janakiraman and Others (1993-23-ATC-322). The counsel for the applicant would further submit that while the juniors of the applicant continued in such promotion posts uninterruptingly the applicant was reverted for a period of more than one year whereby he suffered loss of pay and allowances and his monthly pension was reduced as the applicant retired on 30.04.2006. He submits that the applicant has right to be considered for promotion when his juniors were not only promoted but continued in the higher post, whereby the applicant has been put to disadvantage.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Union Of India & Anr vs R. Swaminathan on 12 September, 1997

It is indicated that others who were not facing such charge sheet continued to officiate as Divisional Engineers. With regard to the financial upgradation scheme dated 18.01.2007, it is stated that the applicant was eligible for 2nd upgradation i.e. from Senior SDE to DE on 27.09.2007 after completion of 5 years of service as Senior SDE but as he retired on 30.04.2006, even before he became eligible, his case could not be considered. However, it is stated that the first upgradation was given to him on 27.09.2002 from SDE to Senior SDE. Further, with regard to the different case laws relied on by the counsel for the applicant, the respondents have stated that the issue of juniors being permitted to officiate in promotional post on account of local officiating arrangements vis-a-vis the seniors is no longer res integra and they have relied on the judgments of Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and another versus R. Swaminathan and others (1997-7-SCC-690) and Union of India and Others versus M. Suryanarayan Rao (1998-6-SCC-400) where the Honble Supreme Court inter alia has held that the benefit of pay fixation can only be given if the duties performed in the officiating capacity by the officer concerned as the officiating local arrangements are made only to over come the exigencies of work.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 79 - S V Manohar - Full Document

B. Subba Rao vs Union Of India And Anr. on 11 September, 1985

He, therefore, places his reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar versus Haryana Power Generation Limited & Another (2006-3-ATJ-117), B. D. Kubba and Another versus Union of India (decided by Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal on 14.07.2004), Awadhut Wasudeo Waikar versus Union of India (OA No.294/1995 decided by the CAT , Principal Bench on 12.04.1996), Ajit S.Bhatia versus Union of India and Another decided by the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal, A. N.Vijay Shanker versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence (decided by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal on 29.03.1993). In view of the above judgments, Shri V. K. Sharma would submit that the OA should be allowed and necessary directions be issued to the respondents.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1