Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.10 seconds)
Deepak Kr Xaxa vs Police on 8 August, 2025 cites

Jagdish Ch. Patnaik & Ors. Etc., ... vs State Of Orissa & Ors., State Of Orissa & ... on 7 April, 1998

The petitioners herein were not party to the aforesaid O.A. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners are the promotees, SIs and their services were regularized in the year 2012 and 2013 as stated in the paragraph 7 and 8 of the affidavit accompanying the writ petition. Therefore, submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Ch. Patnaik - versus State of Orissa, AIR 1998 SC 1926 and also in terms of the para 2.21 of the Police Manual, the seniority of the petitioners are to be counted from the date of their permanent appointment/regularization which is much prior to the date of permanent appointment of the respondents, who were applicants in the aforesaid O.A., i.e. 13.5.2014. Therefore, it is submitted that since valuable rights of the petitioners are affected by the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which has been passed without hearing them and consequently, the writ petition is maintainable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 101 - Full Document

K.Karthikeyan vs Union Of India on 19 January, 2016

We find that the preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the present writ petition is not sustainable in view of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Jeeshan Iman (Supra) and later the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of M. A. Kareem (Supra) the petitioners are certainly persons aggrieved inasmuch as the impugned Judgment was passed by the Tribunal without getting impleaded the petitioners herein or without affording any opportunity of hearing to them while at the same time the Tribunal decided the question of seniority of promotees and direct recruitees. Under the circumstances, the preliminary objection as raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is hereby rejected.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - P Gopinath - Full Document

K Ajit Babu And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 25 July, 1997

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered on 25.07.1997 in K. Ajith Babu and Others versus Union of India AIR 1997 SC 3277, wherein the controversy with regard to the preliminary objection was as to whether for the purpose of review, a person can be said to be person aggrieved within the meaning of Section 22 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 297 - V N Khare - Full Document

A. Janardhana vs Union Of India And Others on 26 April, 1983

The applicants have also cited judgment passed in A. Janardhana v. Union of India & ors. reported in 1983 AIR 769 Digitally signed by Shantanu Pramanik DN: C=IN, O=Personal, T=6283, OID.2.5.4.65= Shantanu 133598026844054409pZp0Sk77DU2VN1, Phone= 495dab51bd16f95eab3873746237af9545f09bb414 3baf81a658d7fbc937c888, PostalCode=712223, S=West Bengal, SERIALNUMBER= 1d3af0fbe8dee56095510835a714afdf51d7f6d80c4 812359eaee8938da0637e, CN=Shantanu Pramanik Pramanik Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 238 - D A Desai - Full Document
1