Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.35 seconds)
Anjumol P R vs D/O Post on 12 January, 2022 cites

Y.Najithamol & Ors vs Soumya S.D.& Ors on 12 August, 2016

In the case of the applicant it was established on the basis of Najithamol (supra) that her date of service can only be counted from her actual date of appointment as MTS and her appointment was as a direct recruit to the post. Hence, her date of service can only be -23- counted with effect from 15.01.2015, her date of joining the post after appointment, even if others who might have taken the same examination for the post of GDS on 26.10.2014 might have joined earlier. All who joined as MTS after the said examination as direct recruits. The fact that in some Divisions the process of appointment got over in November and December 2014 itself, whereas in Ernakulam Division it went into January, 2015 has not injured the applicant in any vested right. There is no way that such an appointment can be backdated or antedated to another date. The appointment can be considered only from the date of joining in the post, which in the case of the applicant is 15.01.2015. It appears from the details provided that the Postmaster General, Central Region approved filling up of the vacancies of MTS on 01.01.2015. On the very next day, on 02.01.2015 there was an order issued by the 5 th respondent attaching the applicant to the Tripunithura S.O. Her actual appointment in the post vide Annexure A-2 order was issued on 15.01.2015 and she joined as per the charge report on 15.01.2015 forenoon.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 104 - V G Gowda - Full Document

Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 March, 2008

12. It is submitted that the applicant had fallen short by only 13 days of service in the MTS category to secure the benchmark of 5 years, solely due to the delay in carrying out appointment in the post of MTS. It is submitted that she is not claiming any appointment with effect from the date of arising of vacancy. Hence the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nirmal Chandra Sinha (supra) is not applicable in her case. Her claim is only to reckon her service in the post of MTS with effect from 01.01.2015 - the date on which the 4th respondent had approved the list of candidates for appointment to the post of MTS. It is submitted that the respondents have admitted to the fact that there was a delay in offering posting due to administrative contingencies. This delay has led to the shortage in the requisite amount of service in the MTS grade for her and has deprived her -14- from the opportunity to take part in the LDCE for promotion as Postal Assistant. Apart from a bald excuse of administrative contingencies, no reasons have been given in the reply statement to explain the time taken to issue the appointment orders, after the finalization of the list by Departmental Screening Committee. Further, the contention that if at all there was any delay, the same ought to have been challenged at the relevant point of time is not acceptable as the cause of action has arisen only now when she was denied the participation in the LDCE for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant. Thus, the present O.A has been filed well in time, since the cause of action has arisen only at present, in the context of denial of the requisite qualifying amount of service for her further promotion.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 85 - M Katju - Full Document

Dr. P. Suresh Babu vs Union Of India Represented By on 26 September, 2012

In addition learned counsel for the respondents has also produced orders dated 18.01.2017 of the Kerala High Court in Sumesh.P & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., (2017) KHC 493, which considered a matter of -24- retrospective seniority claim of employee working in a temporary post who had participated in an examination for appointment as Postman. It was held by the Hon'ble High Court in this matter that seniority is to be counted only from the date of appointment. The Hon'ble High Court in its detailed findings took into consideration views of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the seniority for the purpose of reckoning the prescription of length of service. At para 10 after considering the dictums laid by Hon'ble Apex Court in a number of cases the Hon'ble Court held that there can be no doubt with respect to the position that a direct recruit could not claim ante dating the year of appointment to a date on which he was not born in that service. Thus there cannot be any consideration under any circumstances for antedating the appointment to 1 st of January 2015 or any other date in this matter. The length of service of the applicant can only be considered with effect from the date of joining/appointment ie., 15.01.2015 and thus the eligibility for the consideration of promotion to the post of Postal Assistant can only be from that date.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1