Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.56 seconds)
Rajesh Mishra vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 8 June, 2007 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) Through The ... vs Hari Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Advocate ... on 4 May, 2007

As specified in circular letter dated 4.6.2001, the 3rd category i.e. Category 'C (as provided in the Recruitment Rules under circular dated 4.6.2001), comprised pre-structuring cadre of Tax Assistants and Data Entry Operators Group 'B'. It is on record that ministerial cadre in the Department was restructured in the year 2001 and in consequence to the same, CBDT issued an order dated 26.7.2000. The cadre of Tax Assistants was re-structured and elevated to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 and since the entire cadre of Tax Assistants was upgraded/elevated to the cadre of Senior Tax Assistants, it will not be correct to regard this upgradation as a case of individual promotion. Our above view finds support from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava and Anr. S.L.P. No. 11801 of 1987 Reported in 1987(4) ATC 385, wherein the Hon'ble, Apex Court while upholding the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal had held that 'Upgradation of all the posts in a cadre, does not involve selection or promotion.' In fact what has happened in this case is only an upgradation of a cadre and it can never be considered as a case of individual promotion. What happens in case of restructuring is only a re-distribution or readjustment of posts in accordance with the need and requirement of an organization. It does not involve any separate creation of any additional posts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - S Ambwani - Full Document

All India Non-Sc/St Empl. Assn. ... vs V.K. Agarwal And Ors. on 17 January, 2002

As held by the Apex Court in All India Non-SC/STEmployees Association (Railways) v. V.K. Agrawal and Ors. Contempt Petition No. 304/1999 in Civil Appeal No. 1481/1996 decided on 31.1.2001 that in case of restructuring of a cadre "...it would be a case of upgradation of posts and not a case of additional vacancy or post being created...". Hence the benefit of reservation too in case of reserved categories does not apply in this case. In view of this settled law on the subject, the applicant is correct in holding that up-gradation of the entire cadre of Tax Assistants to Senior Tax Assistants as a result of restructuring is a mere case of fitment and hence does not constitute 'Promotion' in the strict legal sense of the term. The arguments of the respondents No. 1 to 3 as well as of private respondents Nos. 4 to 9 that all such pre-structured Tax Assistants who got their promotions as Senior Tax Assistants on 26.7.2001 could not be considered for promotion to the post of Office Superintendent under Category 'C as they cannot legally avail the benefit of seniority of the cadre of Tax Assistants, since they discarded the same long ago, does not hold any water and is accordingly rejected.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Abraham Jacob & Ors vs Union Of India on 11 February, 1998

In the case of Abraham Jacob and Ors. v. Union of India 1998(2) SLJ 282 (SC) : 1998 (4) SCC 65, the Apex Court had held in Para 3.3 of the judgment that "It is a too well settled rules that the service conditions of employees, in the absence of a statutory rule could be governed by administrative instructions. There was, therefore, no illegality in giving promotion to the Junior Engineers to the post of Assistant Engineer because of the aforesaid administrative decision of the Govt."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 49 - S S Ahmad - Full Document

Union Of India And Ors vs Arun Kumar Roy on 23 January, 1986

21. It is our considered view that once a person is regularly promoted on a substantive basis against regular vacancies in accordance with rules/executive instructions in force by an authority competent to do so, he acquires a vested right to hold the post and to continue on the same and is also entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The applicant thereafter, can neither be reverted nor reconsidered for promotion on the same post i.e. on which he had already promoted on a regular basis through a valid order as in this case. We rely on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy 1986 SCC (L&S) 354, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has affirmed the same principles. The action of the respondents in convening a fresh DPC for the aforesaid purpose on the basis of a fresh eligibility list is, consequently illegal and in complete disregard of settled law violation of established law on the subject and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. On the basis of the above, we pass the following orders:
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - V Khalid - Full Document
1