Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1979SC1596; 49(1980)CLT174(SC); 1979LabIC1124; (1979)IILLJ431SC; (1979)3SCC553; [1980]1SCR24
A.P. Sen J.1. This appeal, by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Orissa, dated November 24, 1970, dismissing the appellant's writ petition for fixation of his year of allotment in the Indian Administrative Service as 1942 instead of 1944 and for giving necessary benefits to him in the fixation of his pay.2. The facts of this case are complicated and involved. It is nevertheless necessary to unravel these complicated facts, in order to appreciate clearly what are the questions which must be dealt with in this appeal. The appellant having been selected by the Special Recruitment Board as an Emergency Recruit from the 'Open Market', was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service on August 7, 1950 and allocated to the Orissa cadre. He was bora on January 7, 1915, and joined the Editorial Staff of the Civil & Military Gazette, Lahore, towards the end of 1938. He continued to serve the Civil & Military Gazette upto January 7, 1943 when he joine...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : ILR1977Delhi538
Yogeshwar Dayal, J. (1) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution filed by Shri Devendra Kumar Shukla for a suitably writ for quashing the revised seniority list as on 11-3-1974 in respect of Grade Iii of Indian Supply Service (Class 1) and for directing the Union of India (respondent No. 1) and the Director General of Supplies and Disposals (respondent No. 2) to re-draw the seniority list by showing the petitioner senior to respondents 7 to 29 in the seniority list as on 20-12-1968 and to give to the petitioner all consequential benefits pursuant to the revision of seniority. A writ of mandamus has also been prayed for directing the aforesaid respondents 1 and 2 to confirm the petitioner against the permanent post to which he was appointed.(2) The Union Public Service Commission is respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called 'the U.P.S.C.').(3) The petitioner is a direct recruit to the Service known as Indian Supply .Service, Class I (hereinafter referred to as 'the I.S.S.') i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Allahabad
Reported in : (1998)2UPLBEC1173
O.P. Garg, J.1. In these two writ petitions, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a dispute has been raised about the selection and appointment to the posts of Senior Administrative Officer, Sadar Munserim in the Judgeship of Bareilly and the Sadar Munserim in the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Bareilly.2. In certain Judgeships of this State, there are posts of Sadar Munserim (hereinafter referred to as 'S.A.O.' and 'S.M.' respectively). The post of S.A.O. is the highest in rank in the establishment of class III employees and the next below the post of S.A.O. is the post of S.M. The post of S.M. is governed by the provisions of Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947. The post of S.A.O. was created by Government Order dated 19.8.1989 in which it was contemplated that the incumbent who is holding the post of S.M. shall be promoted to the post of S.A.O. Any class III employee in the Judgeship may on the basis of seniority, aspire for appointment ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1965SC868; (1966)ILLJ50SC; 1964MhLJ747(SC); (1964)2MysLJ(SC)33; [1964]7SCR471
Ayyangar, J. 1. A very short question regarding the proper construction of Rule 50(b) of the Bombay Civil Services Rules is involved in this appeal which comes before us by a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Mysore under Art. 133 of the Constitution. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal which are necessary to be narrated to appreciate the only point urged before us were these : The respondent was recruited as an Upper Division Clerk by the Government of Bombay in 1931 and was later appointed substantively as a Junior Assistant in the Political Department. While so, on September 17, 1943 his services were transferred on deputation to the office of the Controller of Rationing, Bombay to work as a Senior Assistant in the newly started Rationing department which was a temporary department. He obtained successive promotions in this department and by March, 1954 he was drawing a pay of Rs. 460/- p.m. in the grade Rs. 350 - 30 - 650 as Rationing Officer. That department ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR1988SC968; JT1988(1)SC556; (1988)IILLJ113SC; 1988(1)SCALE517; (1988)2SCC250; [1988]3SCR255; 1988(2)SLJ164(SC); 1988(1)LC633(SC)
E.S. Venkataramiah, J.1. The above petition was originally filed by two members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, by name S/Shri R.L. Gupta and S.M. Aggarwal. Since the Court was of the view that the petition of Shri S.M. Aggarwal should be considered independently, he was asked to file a separate petition. The present petition was, therefore, confined to Shri R.L. Gupta, who is hereafter referred to as 'the petitioner'.2. Shri R.L. Gupta, the petitioner joined the Judicial Service of Punjab on January 23, 1962 and became a member of the Delhi Judicial Service on its initial Constitution on August 2, 1971. He was confirmed in the said service as a Sub-Judge on August 6, 1971. He was sent on deputation as the first District & Sessions Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok on August 19, 1976. While he was on such deputation he was promoted as Additional District & Sessions Judge in the Delhi Higher Judicial Service under Rule 16 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970. At the end of his ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Reported in : (1972)IILLJ86Ker
T.C. Raghavan, C.J.1. The appellants in these writ appeals were upper division clerks in the office of the Accountant-General. Twenty per cent of the posts of upper division clerks were placed in the senior grade ; and promotion to those posts was regulated by paragraph 224 of the Manual of Standing Orders relating to that office. There was a Commission of Enquiry on Emoluments and Conditions of Service of the Central Government Employees; and the Commission made certain recommendations in 1959. Ultimately, paragraph 224 of the manual was reconstructed. Ext. P6 in one of the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals gives the original paragraph 224 and paragraphs 224A and 224B, while Ext. P7 gives the reconstructed paragraph 224. The Accountant-General, the head of the office, and two senior officers, the Deputy Accountant-General and the Deputy Controller of Accounts, were constituted a Departmental Selection Committee; and the committee made the selection to these up-graded posts, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Rajasthan
Reported in : 2001(1)WLC331; 2001(3)WLN424
ORDERShethna, J. (1). Original applicant Shekhar Chand Jain filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), stating that while he was functioning as Senior Transport Instructor in the Zonal Training Centre, Western Railway, Udaipur, two of his juniors were promoted on ad hoc basis in the grade of Rs. 2375-3500 w.e.f. 18.4.94. On a representation made by him, he was also given ad hoc promotion w.e.f. 17.11.94. Though he was senior, but he was superseded by his juniors in ad hoc promotion. He retired from service on 30.11.94. His grievance was that because of his late promotion in the scale of Rs. 2375- 3500, he was put to recurring financial loss in pensionary benefits as compared to his juniors. He made several representations and ultimately, his last representation dated 29.9.96 was rejected by letter dated 11.3.97 at Annex. A/6 to the original application and his further representation was also rejected on 28.5.97, Annex. A/1 to the original application. He, th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Reported in : 2008(2)SLJ258(Delhi)
T.S. Thakur, J.1. In this petition for a writ of certiorari the petitioner calls in question the validity of orders rejecting his representations for protection of his seniority in the cadre of Assistant Commandants in Central Reserve Police Force. A mandamus directing the respondents to grant to the petitioner an appropriate place in the seniority list of Assistant Commandants of the Force in accordance with the rules has also been prayed for. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petition may be summarized as under.2. The petitioner is an Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force. In the year 1997 while he was serving as an Inspector in the Force, he appears to have been selected as a member of the Indian contingent deployed for peace keeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a period of one year. The petitioner was, it appears, around the same time also due for promotion and for being deputed to what is described as 'Senior Inspector Cadre Cou...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Reported in : (2005)141PLR833
S.S. Nijjar, J.1. In this writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certio rari quashing the order dated 6.2.2001 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Central Adminis trative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A. 727/CH/1992 in as much as and to the extent that it holds the petitioner to be ineligible for the grant of sen ior scale. The petitioner also seeks the issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus di recting the respondents to fix his pay in the Senior Scale equal to his junior S.S. Kapoor w.e.f. March, 1983 with all consequential benefits, such as fixation of pay, payment of arrears, re-fixation of pension and gratuity along with interest at the rate of 18% per an num.2. Brief facts as pleaded are that the petitioner joined as Cleaner in the Indian Rail ways on 4.10.1947. He earned promotion in due course on various posts. His last pro motion was as Senior Loco Inspector w.e.f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Reported in : ILR1986KAR3954; (1987)IILLJ113Kant
ORDER1. In this Writ Petition in which the petitioner, a member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS for short), has questioned the constitutional validity of Clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso to Rule 5(a) of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, ('the Rules' for short), the following question of law arises for consideration : 'Whether on the coming into force of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 ('the Act' for short) and the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to retain or entertain petitions presented under that Article before it, challenging the constitutional validity of any law regulating recruitment and conditions of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and decide such petitions stood excluded and got vested in the Central Administrative Tribunal ?' 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows : ...
Tag this Judgment!