Indian Transformers Ltd. Vs. Cegat

stay pre-deposit waiver is only for hearing of appeal, not that it stays recovery. - labour & services appointment: [v.k. bali, ch, p.r. raman & s. siri jagan, jj] post of pharmacist in homeopathy subordinate service - special rules for kerala homeopathy subordinate service rules, 1999 introducing new qualifications vacancy arising subsequent to coming into force of the said special rules held, vacancies have to be filled up only in accordance with special rules, 1999. unfilled vacancy that had arisen prior to amendment cannot be filled up by candidate not possessing amended qualifications prescribed by special rules. state government has the power to frame or amend the special rules with or without retrospective effect. mohanan k.r. & anr vs director of homeopathy, kerala homeopathy services, trivandrum & ors. - the same procedure has to be followed in this case as well.t.l. viswanatha iyer, j.1. heard sri. p.v. madhavan nambiar, senior standing counsel for the central government who appears for the respondents on receipt of a copy of this original petition.2. against the order ext. p-l which was confirmed in appeal by the order ext. p-2 the petitioner has filed a second appeal before the first respondent tribunal a copy of the appeal is ext. p-3. the petitioner has moved an application for dispensing with the prior deposit of the duty payable as per ext. p-l, that was allowed conditionally by the order ext. p-5. the petitioner was called upon to make payment of an amount of rs. 50,000/- subject to which the pre-deposit of the balance demanded was to stand dispensed with. petitioner has complied with the direction in ext. p-5 and therefore the appeal is to be heard on its merits.3. petitioner submits that though they have complied with the order ext. p-5, respondents 2 and 3 are demanding payment of the balance amount due as per ext. p-1 on the allegation that ext. p-5 is only an order waiving the deposit and not an order staying recovery of the balance amount due as per ext, p-l.4. i considered a similar matter, o.p. no. 1039 of 1989 wherein i held that waiver of deposit does not tantamount to stay of collection of the duty payable. however and having regard to the fact that the assessee was under the bonafide belief that it also operates as stay, i granted two months time to the assessee concerned in that case to apply to the tribunal for stay and meanwhile stayed the collection of the amount demanded. the same procedure has to be followed in this case as well.5. accordingly i dispose of the original petition with a direction that respondents 2 and 3 shall not enforce the order ext. p-l for a period of two months from today within which the petitioner may move the first respondent tribunal for appropriate orders for stay of ext. p-l.the original petition is disposed of as above.