Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (0.28 seconds)
Manish Ranjan vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 3 September, 2021 cites

D D Parlawar vs National Highways Authority Of India on 3 September, 2020

8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and have also perused the pleadings on record. It is not in dispute that the applicant has joined the services of the respondent No.2 in the grade of SO/CO in view of the selection process therefor and in accordance with the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. It is also not in dispute that the applicant was absorbed in the grade of SO/CO under the respondent No.2 in view of the recommendations of the concerned DPC and by the competent authority, i.e., the Hon‟ble Chairman of this Tribunal keeping in view the relevant Rules and instructions on the subject. It is also not in dispute that deputation is also a known source of appointment in the eyes of law and rules. Moreover, the issue as to whether a person who has been appointed on deputation by the competent authority, the services spent on deputation shall be required to be taken into account for grant of upgradation/Non-Functional grade has been raised and adjudicated by the various Benches of this Tribunal and most of them have been referred to and relied upon by the applicant and have also been precisely noted hereinabove, the said issue is no more res integra. The stand of the respondent No.1 vide their OM dated 28.9.20210 (Annexure A/3) that the 23 OA 545 of 2019 period only after absorption is required to be taken into consideration for grant of Non-Functional grade has already been rejected by the Calcutta Bench, Mumbai Bench as well as this Bench of this Tribunal in the cases referred to hereinabove and the said judgments have attained finality and have been given effect to. In another case titled D.D. Parlawar vs. National Highways Authority of India (supra), this Tribunal has already ruled, as noted hereinabove, that the period spent on deputation is required to be taken into consideration for determining the eligibility for promotion to the next higher grade. The said judgments have attained finality and the said Order/Judgments have been passed by referring to and relying upon the law laid down by the Hon‟ble High Court as well as of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M. Ramachandran vs Govind Ballabh And Ors on 21 September, 1999

25 OA 545 of 2019 would not, therefore, confer any right of seniority on them. Thus, for all intent and purport for the purpose of determination of seniority, the appellants were not promoted at all. Once they have been absorbed with Respondent 1 and other employees similarly situated, their inter se seniority would be governed by the statutory rules operating the field. The case of the appellants vis-„-vis Respondent 2 although may be governed by the special rules, in terms of Rule 7, the same has to be determined on the criterion of continuous length of service including the service rendered in a Development Authority, Nagar Mahapalika, Nagarpalika or Improvement Trust on similar posts. The appellants, it will bear repetition to state, although were promoted at one point of time on purely ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as the said posts even in their parent authority were not of similar type, the same would not be relevant for the purpose of determining the inter se seniority. If the rule of continuous service in same and similar posts is to be resorted to, the date of initial appointment would be a relevant criterion therefor. [See M. Ramchandran v. Govind Ballabh (1999) 8 SCC 592, K. Anjaiah v. K. Chandraiah (1998) 3 SCC 218, Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC 675 and S.N. Dhingra v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 125.] xx xx xx xx As the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was not a cadre post, the appellants cannot be said to have been working on a higher post for the purpose of Rule 7 of the 1985 Rules."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 33 - Full Document

K Anjaiah Etc vs K. Chandraiah And Ors. Etc on 3 March, 1998

25 OA 545 of 2019 would not, therefore, confer any right of seniority on them. Thus, for all intent and purport for the purpose of determination of seniority, the appellants were not promoted at all. Once they have been absorbed with Respondent 1 and other employees similarly situated, their inter se seniority would be governed by the statutory rules operating the field. The case of the appellants vis-„-vis Respondent 2 although may be governed by the special rules, in terms of Rule 7, the same has to be determined on the criterion of continuous length of service including the service rendered in a Development Authority, Nagar Mahapalika, Nagarpalika or Improvement Trust on similar posts. The appellants, it will bear repetition to state, although were promoted at one point of time on purely ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as the said posts even in their parent authority were not of similar type, the same would not be relevant for the purpose of determining the inter se seniority. If the rule of continuous service in same and similar posts is to be resorted to, the date of initial appointment would be a relevant criterion therefor. [See M. Ramchandran v. Govind Ballabh (1999) 8 SCC 592, K. Anjaiah v. K. Chandraiah (1998) 3 SCC 218, Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC 675 and S.N. Dhingra v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 125.] xx xx xx xx As the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was not a cadre post, the appellants cannot be said to have been working on a higher post for the purpose of Rule 7 of the 1985 Rules."
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - M Srinivasan - Full Document

S.N.Dhingra & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 January, 2001

25 OA 545 of 2019 would not, therefore, confer any right of seniority on them. Thus, for all intent and purport for the purpose of determination of seniority, the appellants were not promoted at all. Once they have been absorbed with Respondent 1 and other employees similarly situated, their inter se seniority would be governed by the statutory rules operating the field. The case of the appellants vis-„-vis Respondent 2 although may be governed by the special rules, in terms of Rule 7, the same has to be determined on the criterion of continuous length of service including the service rendered in a Development Authority, Nagar Mahapalika, Nagarpalika or Improvement Trust on similar posts. The appellants, it will bear repetition to state, although were promoted at one point of time on purely ad hoc basis to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer as the said posts even in their parent authority were not of similar type, the same would not be relevant for the purpose of determining the inter se seniority. If the rule of continuous service in same and similar posts is to be resorted to, the date of initial appointment would be a relevant criterion therefor. [See M. Ramchandran v. Govind Ballabh (1999) 8 SCC 592, K. Anjaiah v. K. Chandraiah (1998) 3 SCC 218, Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. (2001) 4 SCC 675 and S.N. Dhingra v. Union of India (2001) 3 SCC 125.] xx xx xx xx As the post of Assistant Executive Engineer was not a cadre post, the appellants cannot be said to have been working on a higher post for the purpose of Rule 7 of the 1985 Rules."
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 28 - B N Agarwal - Full Document
1   2 3 Next