Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Umesh Prasad Panda vs Accountant General on 29 April, 2025 cites

Hema T.M vs Union Of India Represented By The on 28 October, 2011

6. It is note worthy that one Sri Ashutosh Das, who was similarly situated like the present applicant, also approached this Tribunal in 10 O.A.260/00564 of 2022 OA No. 301/2022 and, this Tribunal, with detailed discussions and deliberation, in a well reasoned order, by following the decision in the case of Hema T.M. & Ors. (supra), dismissed the OA by observing as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

S.I. Rooplal And Anr vs Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary ... on 14 December, 1999

"7 Add to the above, it may be recorded that it was specifically decided by the competent authority that only four years "regular" service is to be counted for grant of NFU, as a matter of policy, and self restraint by the Tribunal in such policy matter is mandated by law. Accordingly, we see no ground to take a different view than the view already taken by the Ernakulam Bench, especially, in view of the well settled proposition of law that the precedents which enunciate rules of law form the foundation of administration of justice under judicial system as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SL.Roop lal and another (supra) On examination, we find that not only the applicants before the Ernakulam Bench but also the present applicant belong to the same department and same cadre, the foundation led in both the cases are also same and simular leaving no scope for this Bench in the present case to take a different view than the view already taken by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal Therefore, since the Ernakulam Bench after analyzing and answering all the points dismissed the OA, we do not find any justifiable reason to resterate the same discussions herein again"
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 421 - Full Document

Union Of India vs Amrik Singh on 14 October, 1993

26. We have heard the contentions of both sides in detail during oral submissions. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Vineeth Komalachandran (appearing for K.I. Mayankutty Mather) brought forth a few additional points, by citing some judgments that he felt were relevant in this context. He drew attention to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. Amrik Singh & Ors. 1994 (1) SCC 269. This judgment was in relation to a matter of whether instructions dated March 21st 1978 issued by the C&AG of India, prescribing the minimum period of service as Section Officer for eligibility for promotion as Accounts Officer was inconsistent with any of the provisions in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (Administrative Officers, Accounts Officers and Audit Officers) Recruitment Rules, 1964 etc.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - N Venkatachala - Full Document

Accountant General & Anr. Etc. Etc vs S. Doraiswamy & Ors. Etc. Etc on 13 November, 1980

It was observed by the Apex Court in paragraph 9 as follows:... As is held by this Court in the Accountant General vs. S. Doraiswamy, AIR 1981 SC 783, the Comptroller and Auditor General of India has the necessary competence to issue Departmental Instructions on matter of conditions of service of persons serving in his Department as its head, even after rules are made by the President on conditions of service of such persons in exercise of his powers under Article 148(5) of the Constitution'. It was further held that 'It is no doubt true that the Administrative Instructions so issued on matters relating to conditions of service of persons in the Department cannot prevail over the rules issued by the President under Clause (5) of Article 148 of the
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 159 - R S Pathak - Full Document

K. Madhavan And Anr. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors. Etc on 9 October, 1987

Further, while considering the definition of the word 'regular the Concise Oxford Dictionary in K.B. Rajoria (supra), it was held that the word regular does not mean actual. The Hon'ble Apes Court in this connection also referred to the findings in K. Madan (supira) that the expression on a regular basis 6 O.A.260/00564 of 2022 would mean the appointment to the post am a regular basis in contra-distinction to appointment on an adhoc or stop-gap or purely temporary basis. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that these pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are clearly in favour of the respondents, as the rules for NFU provide that there has to be 4 years regular service in the Grade Pay/Pay Level concerned for the NFU to be granted to the next Grade Pay/Pay Level.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 141 - M M Dutt - Full Document

Parmod Kumar vs The State Of Haryana on 28 January, 2022

28. Learned counsel for the respondents also drew our attention to Parmod Kumar vs State of Haryana, 2018 (0) Supreme (P&H) 4495, where it was held that the petitioners were not entitled to count their period of adhoc/work charged/temporary service towards seniority in the cadre before the dane they were regularized and became members of service for the Orst time in terms of the relevant policies of State Government.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rohit Guljarilal Anand And Etc Etc vs M/S Arcade (India) Pvt Ltd And Ors. Etc. ... on 7 April, 2017

Learned coutusel also pointedly drew our attention to a similar matter as in the present OA had been considered by the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal in Anand Purohit vs Union of India & Ors, in 0.A.No.1010/2010 decided on 07.08.2013. This was in the matter of pay fixation in a case of adhoc promotion followed by regular promotion without break. The contention therein was that sunce there is te definition of 'regular service' either in the Fundamental Rules (FR) or by a specific Circular, any service from the date of adhoc promotion should be considered as regular service, particularly since the applicant therein had been getting all increments in the month of July, based on the date of his adhoc promotion. The Tribunal however held that while it is true that the regular service has not been specifically defined in the FR, there was still no reason to accept adhoc service as regular service, as otherwise, there would have been no need to make a separate mention about adhoc promotion' in FR 22 and other rules under the FR. Hence, drawing from this, the Tribunal observed that the approved scheme for grant of a higher Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- by way of Non Functional Upgradation specifically mentions that only those officers were eligible, who had completed four years of regular service as an 7 O.A.260/00564 of 2022 Income Tax Officer. Thus, it was held that the four year period was to be counted from the date of regular promotion and not from the date of adhoc promotion. In other words, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in effect in a similar matter of eligibility for entitlement to Grade Pay of Rs.5400/- to an officer who wanted his adhoc service to be counted, the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal had not agreed with the contention.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1