Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.23 seconds)Vinod Kumar Jain vs The Chief Executive National ... on 31 October, 2003
The Tribunal by the
impugned order has quashed the order dated 2nd September, 2008
passed pursuant to order dated 26th May, 2008 in OA No.1317/2005,
titled as „Vinod Kumar Jain v. Union of India & Ors‟. By the impugned
order dated 7th July, 2010, the Tribunal, while quashing the order dated
2nd September, 2008 passed by the petitioners, has remanded the
matter back to the petitioners with the directions to consider the aspect
of the merger of AFLEs & DFLEs and grant of seniority on merger of
both the categories of AFLEs & DFLEs in accordance with the
observations made by the Tribunal in its order dated 26th May, 2008
passed in OA No.1317/2005. While passing the impugned order, the
Tribunal also held that till a fresh order is passed by the petitioners,
promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary shall remain on hold.
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 309 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Prachi Nigam vs Union Of India on 7 July, 2010
57. This Court does not find any serious legal infirmity in the order
dated 2nd September, 2008 passed by the petitioners nor there is any
legally sustainable ground to quash the said order. Therefore, in the
facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, the impugned
order dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal in O.A no. 3663 of 2009 titled as Prachi Nigam & Ors Vs
Union of India & Ors and in O.A No. 3907 of 2009 titled as Vinod
Kumar Jain Vs Union of India & Ors. is set aside and the original
applications of the respondents are dismissed and the above noted writ
petitions are allowed. The observation of the Tribunal that the two posts
of AFLE and DFLE were merged w.e.f 1.1.1996 is quashed and the
direction of the Tribunal to the petitioners to reconsider and decide
about the merger of posts of AFLEs and DFLEs and grant of seniority on
merger to both categories of DFLEs and AFLEs is consequently set
aside. Since these posts could not be merged retrospectively, in the
present facts and circumstances and for the foregoing reasons, there
cannot be a common seniority list of AFLEs and DFLEs nor the
respondents, AFLEs, are entitled for promotion to higher posts on the
basis of alleged combined seniority list of AFLEs and DFLEs. The
direction of the Tribunal to hold on the promotion to the higher posts
till reconsideration of merger of posts in view of observation made by
the Tribunal in the impugned orders is also set aside and the
petitioners shall be entitled to promote the concerned employees
WP(C) 8401/2010 & WP (C) 8503/2010 Page 51 of 52
according to rules. Status Quo order dated 21.12.2010 passed in CM
No. 21770 of 2010 is vacated and the application is dismissed. The
application of the respondents, being CM 273 OF 2011 in WP(C) 8503 of
2010, is also dismissed. With these directions the writ petitions are
allowed, however, parties are left to bear their own costs.
Reserve Bank Of India vs N. C. Paliwal & Others on 24 August, 1976
This Court in Reserve Bank of India v. N.C. Paliwal held as
under: (SCR Headnote p. 379)
"The integration of different cadres into one cadre
cannot be said to involve any violation of the equality
clause. It is entirely a matter for the State to decide
whether to have several different cadres or one
integrated cadre in its services. That is a matter of
policy which does not attract the applicability of
the equality clause. The integration of non-clerical
with clerical service sought to be effectuated by the
Combined Seniority Scheme cannot, in the
circumstances, be assailed as violative of the principle
of quality."
Inder Singh & Ors vs Vyas Muni Mishra & Ors on 14 August, 1987
In Inder Singh v. Vyas Muni Mishra, the Supreme Court
Court had again observed as under: (SCR Headnote p. 973)
"The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in
directing the merger of the posts of Ganna Gram
Sewaks and Cane Supervisors.
Union Of India vs Arun Jyoti Kundu & Ors on 27 August, 2007
21. We may in this context notice that the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi dealing
with a similar claim took up the position on the basis of
decisions of this Court, that the Tribunal would have no
jurisdiction to issue the directions sought for by the
employees. It is submitted that the correctness of the said
decision has been questioned in the High Court at Delhi.
Therefore, it is not necessary for us to make any
observation regarding that decision. But we note that, that
Tribunal declined jurisdiction in similar circumstances."
K. Narayanan vs State Of Karnataka on 2 September, 1993
In K. Narayanan v. State of Karnataka,
1994 Supp (1) SCC 44, at page 55 the Supreme Court had considered
the retrospectivity as an exception in the following manner :_
Dwarka Prasad And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 28 July, 2003
Relying on „Dwarka Prasad
and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.‟ (2003) 6 SCC 535, it was held that
the amendment to the rules making ratio for promotion from 50-50 to
60-40 between DFLEs and AFLEs could not be disallowed. The Tribunal
had held that merely because both the posts are in the same scale, it
does not imply that they must get the same or higher percentage of
promotional avenues and that the number of feeder cadre posts can
only be one of the factors, but not the tilting factors. The Tribunal in
the said OA in para 15 had held as under:-