Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
S Arokiam vs D/O Post on 3 February, 2023 cites

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

and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to give a thoughtful consideration. To the said orders passed by the CAT, Cuttack Bench relied upon by the respondents in support of their contention, we may refer here the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the matter of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors dated 18.04.1985 [1985 SCC(2) 648], S.I.Rooplal Vs. Lt.Governor in CA No.5363-64/1997 dated 14.12.1999 and the judgment of the Kerala High court dated 11.01.2021 in W.A.No.1663/2020 in the case Narayani Krishnan Vs. UOI relied upon by the applicants. While considering the issue, the Hon'ble Courts have observed that the similar benefit has to be extended to the similarly situated persons. It has also been observed that an earlier judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal is binding on the subsequent Bench. However, if the subsequent co-ordinate Bench is of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the same Bench is not correct it would refer the matter to a larger bench to avoid difference of 10 OA 949/2016 opinion between two co-ordinate Benches but will not overrule the judgement of the co-ordinate Bench as it will be against all principles of judicial discipline. After going through the judgements and orders relied upon by the respondents, we have seen that in the said order the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has rejected the OA on the sole ground of delay and latches and one of the matter has been remitted back by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for reconsidering the issue on its own merit. It is clear from the said fact that while passing the said orders, the Cuttack Bench of CAT has not looked into the aspect of merit. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the said judgements are not applicable to the applicants' case in this OA. It is to be noted that the respondents have not uttered a single word in their reply regarding delay and limitation and it is not their case even while rejecting the representations of the applicants and not while filing the counter affidavit to oppose the claim of the applicants. Therefore the respondents' reliance upon the orders of the Cuttack Bench of CAT dismissing the OAs on the sole ground of delay and latches cannot be acceptable as the same is unreasonable and such an arguments goes against the letter and spirit of the communication issued by the respondents themselves from the year 1984 and 1991. Therefore, this arguments put forward by the respondents has to fail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 421 - Full Document

Narayani Krishnan vs The Union Of India on 11 January, 2021

and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal to give a thoughtful consideration. To the said orders passed by the CAT, Cuttack Bench relied upon by the respondents in support of their contention, we may refer here the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the matter of Inder Pal Yadav & Ors dated 18.04.1985 [1985 SCC(2) 648], S.I.Rooplal Vs. Lt.Governor in CA No.5363-64/1997 dated 14.12.1999 and the judgment of the Kerala High court dated 11.01.2021 in W.A.No.1663/2020 in the case Narayani Krishnan Vs. UOI relied upon by the applicants. While considering the issue, the Hon'ble Courts have observed that the similar benefit has to be extended to the similarly situated persons. It has also been observed that an earlier judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of the same Tribunal is binding on the subsequent Bench. However, if the subsequent co-ordinate Bench is of the opinion that the earlier view taken by the same Bench is not correct it would refer the matter to a larger bench to avoid difference of 10 OA 949/2016 opinion between two co-ordinate Benches but will not overrule the judgement of the co-ordinate Bench as it will be against all principles of judicial discipline. After going through the judgements and orders relied upon by the respondents, we have seen that in the said order the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal has rejected the OA on the sole ground of delay and latches and one of the matter has been remitted back by the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa for reconsidering the issue on its own merit. It is clear from the said fact that while passing the said orders, the Cuttack Bench of CAT has not looked into the aspect of merit. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the said judgements are not applicable to the applicants' case in this OA. It is to be noted that the respondents have not uttered a single word in their reply regarding delay and limitation and it is not their case even while rejecting the representations of the applicants and not while filing the counter affidavit to oppose the claim of the applicants. Therefore the respondents' reliance upon the orders of the Cuttack Bench of CAT dismissing the OAs on the sole ground of delay and latches cannot be acceptable as the same is unreasonable and such an arguments goes against the letter and spirit of the communication issued by the respondents themselves from the year 1984 and 1991. Therefore, this arguments put forward by the respondents has to fail.
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

G. Perumal, K. Ramu, M. Kannan, M. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Director ... on 27 March, 2002

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG- II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - D Murugesan - Full Document
1