Service Matter CAT Central Administrative Tribunal Judgments Supreme Court of India
| 1 | English മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer DR. V. R. SANAL KUMAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2023] 5 S.C.R. 772 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR thereon, by the High Court of Kerala. As per the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the challenge against the order dated 30.09.2008 of the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 653 of 2007. 2. Compendiously stated, the case that culminated in the impugned, the inquiry was conducted ex-parte and the copy of the Inquiry Report holding the charges as proved submitted by the Inquiry Officer, was sent to him. 4. Meanwhile, the appellant unsuccessfully preferred two Original Applications before the central administrative tribunal viz., O.A. Nos. 150 Date of decision : 12-05-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6301/2013 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 2 | T. VALSAN (D) THR. LRS. & ORS. Vs K. KANAGARAJ & ORS. – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 456 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,MANOJ MISRA as a Junior Engineer, before the acquisition of an engineering degree, would be counted. The Appellants, thus, approached the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CAT’) in O.A. No. 355/2008, challenging the decision of the Puducherry administration to was alleged to have resulted in denying promotion to the Junior Engineers, who joined the service as Degree holders. Procedural History: Before the central administrative tribunal 7. The CAT, vide an order dated 20.11.2009, partly found in favour of the Appellants and opined that the Date of decision : 08-05-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3466/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 3 | SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS. ETC Vs VIJAY D. KASBE AND ORS. ETC – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 246 Judge Name: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN,PANKAJ MITHAL recorded by a Tribunal – However, in the present case, the central administrative tribunal reached diametrically opposite findings of fact, in two different sets of cases filed by employees holding similar supervisory posts, both of which cannot co-exist. Service Law – Persons in the civil including allowances, is a service matter. The respondents herein, at least during the period from 1988 till the year 2006, were either holders of civil posts under the Union or appointed to the civil services of the Union. This is why the respondents approached the central administrative tribunal , for Date of decision : 18-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2911/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 4 | M/S SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. Vs NAVEEN MATHEW PHILIP & ANR. ETC. ETC. – [2023] 4 S.C.R. 18 Judge Name: SANJIV KHANNA,M.M. SUNDRESH DRAT can be directed to be considered by other Tribunals like central administrative tribunal , Armed Forces Tribunal and Industrial Tribunal within the State. With a view to resolve the problem being faced by the parties, for the time being and purely as a stop-gap arrangement, we request the Date of decision : 17-04-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2861/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 5 | English ગુજરાતી – Gujarati Disclaimer DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN PRASAR BHARTI CORPORATION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs SMT. MAGI H DESAI – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 660 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR thereafter extended from time to time, however, with break of few days. The original applicant thereafter filed Original Application No. 32/1987 before the central administrative tribunal , Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). The said OA was partly allowed vide order dated Date of decision : 24-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1787/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 6 | THE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Vs KAMLESH RANI BHATLA – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 676 Judge Name: ANIRUDDHA BOSE,KRISHNA MURARI the legality of a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, which in substance sustains an order of the central administrative tribunal allowing the respondent to withdraw her resignation and permit her to re-join duty. At the material point of time, the respondent was working as an Date of decision : 23-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1927/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 7 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs PARASHOTAM DASS – [2023] 3 S.C.R. 598 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,ABHAY S. OKA,B.V. NAGARATHNA not in routine interfere with the orders of the Armed Forces Tribunal under Article 226 seeking to exercise the jurisdiction akin to say a central administrative tribunal . Our observations: 24. We have given thought to the matter, keeping in mind the last aspect emphasized by the learned Date of decision : 21-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/447/2023 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 8 | ORISSA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS – [2023] 6 S.C.R. 731 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI expeditiously but would also provide to the persons covered by the Administrative Tribunals speedy relief in respect of their grievances.” 5. Section 4(1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act provides that the Central Government shall establish an administrative tribunal known as the “ Central Administrative Tribunal ”3 to adjudicate disputes concerning the recruitment and conditions of service of persons in connection with posts under the Union or All-India Service,4 including disputes with respect to remuneration, pension, tenure, leave, and disciplinary matters.5 In terms of Section 4(2 Date of decision : 21-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6805/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 9 | UNION OF INDIA Vs SANJIV CHATURVEDI – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 59 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA and has set aside order dated 04.12.2020 passed by the Chairman, central administrative tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi by which the learned Principal Bench of the Tribunal transferred Original Application (OA) No. 331/109/2020 filed by the original writ petitioner, from the Allahabad passed by the Chairman, central administrative tribunal , New Delhi by observing that there is no requirement of law that a policy decision must, necessarily, be challenged before the Principal Bench and that there is no provision under the Act, 1985 that a challenge to a policy decision can be Date of decision : 03-03-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1587/2023 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench |
| 10 | UNION OF INDIA Vs INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 529 Judge Name: AJAY RASTOGI,BELA M. TRIVEDI )No. 1006 of 2008, whereby the High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2228 of 2006. 2. The respondent-Indian Navy Date of decision : 22-02-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8329/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 11 | English ಕನ್ನಡ – Kannada Disclaimer NATIONAL TECHNICAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATION & ORS Vs DIPTI DEODHARE – [2023] 2 S.C.R. 369 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,HIMA KOHLI . 10867/2021, by which the High Court, while allowing the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and setting aside order dated 31.05.2021 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) dismissing O.A. No. 170 High Court has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent herein and has quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the central administrative tribunal dismissing the O.A. and has modified the order dated 12.02.2019 issued by the NTRO and has directed that the same be held Date of decision : 17-02-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/413/2023 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 12 | SHRI RAM SHRIDHAR CHIMURKAR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2023] 1 S.C.R. 931 Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,B.V. NAGARATHNA herein was allowed. Consequently, the judgment and order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Mumbai dated 19th July, 2002, whereby the Original Application filed by the Appellant herein was allowed, has been set aside. 3. Succinctly stated, the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are communicated to the Appellant by way of letter dated 23rd February, 2000. 3.4. Aggrieved by the Respondents’ rejection of his claim for family pension, the Appellant filed an Original Application, being O.A. No. 2166 of 2001, before the central administrative tribunal , Mumbai, praying that the order Date of decision : 17-01-2023 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/386/2023 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 13 | UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs SUBRATA NATH – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 605 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HIMA KOHLI before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the central administrative tribunal . In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its Date of decision : 23-11-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7939/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 14 | AROON PURIE Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 311 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,BELA M. TRIVEDI should not be initiated against said officer “for sexual harassment of a woman at work place” – The said officer filed response and thereafter disciplinary authority ordered penalty – Order imposing penalty upheld by the central administrative tribunal and also by High Court – In the meantime Date of decision : 31-10-2022 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/1853/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 15 | UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs MUNSHI RAM – [2022] 10 S.C.R. 1135 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA allowed the said writ petitions preferred by the respective private respondents herein and has set aside the orders passed by the central administrative tribunal and thereafter directed the appellants – Northern Railway to count 50% of their service as Commission Vendors, prior to their absorption then approached the central administrative tribunal with O.A. No. 219/2016 praying for further consequential relief of grant of pensionary/retirement benefits. It was their case before the CAT that the total service of each of the applicants rendered prior to their absorption in the Railways Date of decision : 31-10-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2811/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 16 | UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs G.R. MEGHWAL – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 481 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA held on 28.12.2010 to consider the grant of NFU in SAG. The respondent was not found eligible by the DPC on the ground that in the year 2007-2008, his ACR was “Good”. Therefore, the respondent preferred O.A. No. 430 of 2011 before the central administrative tribunal . 2.3 Before the Tribunal, it Date of decision : 23-09-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2021/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 17 | R. D. KAUSHAL AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 418 Judge Name: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA at Delhi, in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8503/2010, thereby setting aside the judgment dated 7th July, 2010 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the learned CAT”) in Original Application No. 3663/2009. 3. The facts leading to the Date of decision : 14-09-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6573/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 18 | THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR Vs B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS – [2022] 18 S.C.R. 351 Judge Name: INDIRA BANERJEE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN to the State of Andhra Pradesh. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. v. B. SUBBA RAYUDU AND OTHERS [INDIRA BANERJEE, J.] A B C D E F G H 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 18 S.C.R. 10. The Respondent filed an application being O.A No.209/2016 before the central administrative tribunal at Date of decision : 14-09-2022 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/1565/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 19 | DEEPIKA SINGH Vs CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 557 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA A B C D E F G H 557 DEEPIKA SINGH v. central administrative tribunal AND OTHERS (Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022) AUGUST 16, 2022 [DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND A S BOPANNA, JJ.] Service Law: Central Civil Services (Leave) Rules 1972: r. 43 – Maternity leave – Entitlement to with. Familial relationships may take DEEPIKA SINGH v. central administrative tribunal AND OTHERS A B C D E F G H 560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. the form of domestic, unmarried partnerships or queer relationships. A household may be a single parent household for any number of Date of decision : 16-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5308/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 20 | MEHMOOD PRACHA Vs CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – [2022] 7 S.C.R. 20 Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY A B C D E F G H 20 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 7 S.C.R. MEHMOOD PRACHA v. central administrative tribunal (Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2020) AUGUST 10, 2022 [K. M. JOSEPH AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Contempt of the Courts Act, 1971 – ss. 14, 17 – The Contempt of Courts (C.A.T) Rules Court has noticed all that took place on 18.03.2020. On the said day, different submissions were made. On the one hand, the Additional Solicitor General told the Tribunal that the trial may not be necessary in view of the judgment in MEHMOOD PRACHA v. central administrative tribunal A B C D Date of decision : 10-08-2022 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/892/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 21 | S. KULDEEP SINGH & ANR Vs S. PRITHPAL SINGH – [2022] 13 S.C.R. 100 Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY counsel further relied on Mohammad Ansari v. Union of India & Ors5., “35. At this stage, it is necessary to recapitulate that during the pendency of the matter before the High Court, the central administrative tribunal had passed the final order on 5-11-2012 in favour of the appellant. Be that as Date of decision : 02-08-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/81/2011 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 22 | THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BHILAI STEEL PLANT, BHILAI Vs MAHESH KUMAR GONNADE & ORS. – [2022] 6 S.C.R. 979 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY to the judgment and order dated 09.01.2017 in the WP No. 675/2016 whereby the Division Bench has interfered with the order passed by the central administrative tribunal (for short “CAT”) and granted relief to the writ petitioner (respondent no. 1) whose termination order dated 24.10.2015 was 24.10.2015. The Bhillai Steel Plant also ordered for forfeiture of all the service benefits of the respondent no.1 such as CPF, Gratuity, Pension, Leave Encashment etc. 4. The respondent no.1 moved the central administrative tribunal (CAT), to challenge the termination but his OA 1115/2015 came to Date of decision : 11-07-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4990/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 23 | UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs SHARVAN KUMAR – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 445 Judge Name: DINESH MAHESHWARI,KRISHNA MURARI 21.06.2013 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Calcutta Bench (‘the Tribunal’) in OA No. 293 of 2011 and has also held that the remitted proceedings in the disciplinary enquiry against the respondent were rendered nullity, for having not been concluded within the time limit fixed by the Date of decision : 06-07-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1942/2014 | Disposal Nature : Case Partly allowed |
| 24 | MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ADVOCATES BAR ASSOCIATION AND ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ANR – [2022] 15 S.C.R. 299 Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY Ranganath Misra, J. are concerned, I express my entire agreement with the view taken by him.” 17. As is seen, Justice Bhagwati made the above observation in the case where the Supreme Court was concerned with the central administrative tribunal [in short, “CAT”] where the volume of litigation is Date of decision : 18-05-2022 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/433/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 25 | BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED & ANR. Vs SANDEEP CHOUDHARY & ORS. – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 1002 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 159 of 2009 by which the learned Tribunal allowed the said application preferred by the respondent No.1 herein – original applicant and directed the appellant herein – BSNL to consider Date of decision : 28-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8717/2015 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 26 | UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. Vs MUKESH KUMAR MEENA – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA dated 20.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCWP No. 1542 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein – original writ petitioner and has set aside the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 155 of 2014 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application preferred by the respondent herein – original applicant (hereinafter referred to as “original applicant”) and has directed to “Other Taxes”. According to the original applicant, he was entitled for grace marks in the subject of “Other Taxes”,but the same were not given to him as he was treated qualified in the category of Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, it gave cause to him to approach the central administrative tribunal , Jodhpur Date of decision : 28-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3468/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 27 | UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs M. DURAISAMY – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 51 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Original Application (OA) No. 357 of 2012 by which the Tribunal allowed the said OA and modified the punishment from dismissal/ removal from service to compulsory retirement, the Union of India and Petition No. 33303 of 2013 dismissing the same and confirming the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dated 26.03.2013 in O.A. No. 357 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, order dated 26.03.2013 passed by the central administrative tribunal , Madras Bench in O.A. No. 357/2012 Date of decision : 19-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2665/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 28 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs SHRI C.R. MADHAVA MURTHY & ANR. – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 22 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,B.V. NAGARATHNA at par with their juniors. Thereafter, the original writ petitioners preferred O.A. Nos. 813 & 814/2014 before the central administrative tribunal , Bengaluru Bench, Bengaluru. By the common order dated 04.01.2016, the Tribunal rejected the said applications. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied Date of decision : 06-04-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2087/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 29 | B.S. MURTHY & ORS Vs A. RAVINDER SINGH & ORS. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,HEMANT GUPTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT those writ petitions and set aside the order2 of the central administrative tribunal (CAT) in a batch of ten original applications. The CAT’s order had allowed those applications and directed proper fixation of inter se seniority of Inspectors of Central Excise, as between direct recruits and Date of decision : 15-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3968/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 30 | SK NAUSAD RAHAMAN & ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS – [2022] 12 S.C.R. 591 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,VIKRAM NATH ………………………………………………………. 26* A Facts 1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala dealt with a batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the orders of the central administrative tribunal on the issue of the withdrawal of Inter-Commissionerate Transfers1 2018 was challenged before the central administrative tribunal . The challenge was upheld by the Tribunal. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226, reversed the decision of the Tribunal. B Relevant circulars and notifications 9. In order to appreciate the Date of decision : 10-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1243/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 31 | THE VICE CHAIRMAN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs NARENDER KUMAR & ORS – [2022] 4 S.C.R. 480 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,BELA M. TRIVEDI , appellant-authority sought application of Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme upon the ground that the same become operative from 01.09.2008 – Respondents successfully filed application before the central administrative tribunal – Appellant authority approached High Court – High Court claim the second ACP benefit had accrued to them earlier, they should have been granted the benefit of second ACP. Consequently, they approached the central administrative tribunal (CAT) by filing original applications5. Proceedings before CAT 6. Before CAT, the employee- respondents contended that Date of decision : 08-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1880/2022 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 32 | UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Vs MANPREET SINGH POONAM ETC. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 764 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,M.M. SUNDRESH delivered by M. M. SUNDRESH, J. 1. These appeals are filed by the respondents before the High Court and the central administrative tribunal , raising a challenge on two grounds, namely: – i. A voluntary retiree cannot seek promotion as a matter of right sans rules governing. ii. a mere delay in strength was increased to 472. 3. The respondents filed separate applications before the central administrative tribunal (CAT). Despite holding that the post of JAG-I is neither wholly promotional nor an upgradation, the applications were dismissed on the premise that a conjoint reading of Rule 4 and 7 Date of decision : 08-03-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/517/2017 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 33 | MUKESH KUMAR & ANR Vs THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2022] 1 S.C.R. 644 Judge Name: UDAY UMESH LALIT,S. RAVINDRA BHAT,PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA appellants 1 Union of India v. V.R. Tripathi, (2019) 14 SCC 646. A B C D E F G H 647 filed an original application before the central administrative tribunal , Patna, which was dismissed on 19.07.2017. A writ petition was filed before the High Court of Patna questioning the correctness of Date of decision : 24-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1620/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 34 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer SUNIL KUMAR RAI & ORS. Vs THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS. – [2022] 3 S.C.R. 1111 Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,HRISHIKESH ROY Misra, M.M. Punchhi and K. Ramaswamy, JJ.)] by passing the following order: “1. Special leave granted. 2. The short point raised in this appeal is as to whether the central administrative tribunal was right in holding that the appellant did not belong to the Lohar community which has now been Date of decision : 21-02-2022 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/1052/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 35 | OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LTD. Vs THE PRESIDENT, OIL FIELD EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ORS. – [2022] 19 S.C.R. 376 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,ANIRUDDHA BOSE of Rattan Lal Sharma (supra) and Kalyani Sharp India Ltd. (supra) arose out of admitted fact. In the case of Shivram Mahadu Gaikwad (supra) it was the limitation question which went to the root of the matter. This case arose out of a proceeding before the central administrative tribunal . Point Date of decision : 04-02-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1033/2022 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 36 | THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT & ANR. Vs K. SUDHEESH KUMAR & ORS. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 720 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA . Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 23.10.2019passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in OP (CAT) No.171 of 2019, by which the High Court has allowed the said original petition (OP) and set aside the order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam as GP of Rs.5400 as per clause 8.1. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein approached the central administrative tribunal , Ernakulam Bench and prayed to continue the GP of Rs.6600 as per the earlier order dated 17.11.2009 and not to make any recovery. A decision of the Madras High Court was Date of decision : 28-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/442/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 37 | STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs R.D. SHARMA AND ANR. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 707 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,BELA M. TRIVEDI , Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide the order dated 24th June, 2011. The aggrieved respondent filed an O.A. being No. 1142/2011 before the central administrative tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh on 27th Date of decision : 27-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/474/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 38 | THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Vs A NISHANTH GEORGE – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 289 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,A.S. BOPANNA LARSGESS Scheme was scrutinised by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a decision dated 27 April 2016 in Kala Singh v. Union of India1. In that case there was a challenge to an order of the central administrative tribunal (“CAT”) by which it dismissed the original Date of decision : 25-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/294/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 39 | UNION OF INDIA Vs ALAPAN BANDYOPADHYAY – [2022] 16 S.C.R. 259 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,C.T. RAVIKUMAR , and is set aside – central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 – rr. 6 , r. 4(5)(a) & (b) – Constitution of India, Arts. 226 & 227. [2022] 16 S.C.R. 259 259 A B C D E F G H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2022] 16 S.C.R. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. Once the High jurisdictional High Court to exercise the power of judicial review qua the order of transfer passed by the Chairman of the central administrative tribunal at New Delhi in exercise of power under Section 25 of the Act’. 3. The Appellant assails the final judgment and order dated 29.10.2021 passed by Date of decision : 06-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/197/2022 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 40 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs MANJU ARORA & ANR. – [2022] 2 S.C.R. 591 Judge Name: R. SUBHASH REDDY,HRISHIKESH ROY as well. 4. The withdrawal of ACP benefit for the two respondents and one other was challenged before the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench (for short “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 2673/2002 (Suman Lata Bhatia), OA No. 2674/2002 (Veena Arora) and OA No. 3021/2002 (Manju Arora Date of decision : 03-01-2022 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7027/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 41 | SUNNY ABRAHAM Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 892 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,ANIRUDDHA BOSE Court is set aside and that of the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal is restored subject to certain modification on operational part of it. The proceeding against the appellant relates to an incident alleged to have taken place in the year 1998 and the proceeding was initiated the enquiry officer and appellant was served with both the reports and advice of the CVC. Till the time of filing of the O.A. No. 1157 of 2014 before the Principal Bench of the central administrative tribunal (CAT), the appellant instituted several proceedings, mainly on procedural irregularities Date of decision : 17-12-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7764/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 42 | BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. Vs SRI DEO KUMAR RAI @ DEO KUMAR RAY – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 882 Judge Name: R. SUBHASH REDDY,HRISHIKESH ROY respondent – Petitions dismissed by central administrative tribunal – Order set aside by High Court, matter remanded back for fresh adjudication – Tribunal ordered respondent’s regularization – Writ petition filed by appellant, dismissed by High Court – Review Petition – Dismissed – On appeal, held F G H 885 2. Heard Mr. Dinesh Agnani, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Surendra Patri, learned counsel representing the respondent (original applicant before the central administrative tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”)). 3. The challenge here is to the Date of decision : 14-12-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/7707/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 43 | English ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED Vs GOURI DEVI – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 37 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,SANJIV KHANNA Court of Orissa at Cuttack in Writ Petition No. 7791 of 2020 by which the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the said writ petition preferred by the appellant herein and has confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal passed in T.A. No.14 of the order of the High Court, the writ petition was transferred to the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack, which was registered as T.A. No. 14 of 2014. By the judgment and order dated 28.11.2019, the learned Tribunal disposed of T.A. No. 14 of 2014 and directed the appellant to re Date of decision : 18-11-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6910/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 44 | MOHD. MUSTAFA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 163 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,SANJIV KHANNA,BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI . Dinkar Gupta was appointed as Director General of Police (Head of Police Force) (hereinafter referred to “DGP (HoPF)”), the Appellants filed original applications before the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. By an order dated 17.01.2020, the Tribunal set aside the (hereinafter referred to as “UPSC”) and the State of Punjab to conduct selection for the post of DGP (HoPF), State of Punjab afresh. The judgement of the central administrative tribunal was challenged in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by the UPSC, the State of Punjab and Mr. Dinkar Gupta. Mr Date of decision : 16-11-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6905/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 45 | SUDHIR KUMAR ATREY Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 835 Judge Name: AJAY RASTOGI,ABHAY S. OKA out of the select panel dated 29th June, 1983 of Western Command in the year 1983 and after rounds of litigation before central administrative tribunal /High Court, the matter has travelled to this Court to determine the inter se seniority of such persons who, although selected in June 1983 in level is not meted out in OM dated 3rd July, 1986. 13. To sum up the situation, central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, in dealing with the situation as emerged afore-stated, in its order dated 26th May, 2008, observed in paras 23 and 24 as under: “23. From Annexure ‘O’, we can gather Date of decision : 26-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/6460/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 46 | English മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Vs MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS AND ANR – [2021] 11 S.C.R. 396 Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN the officers claim allocation. [Para 42][428-G] 20. In terms of Rule 6 of the central administrative tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, an application before the central administrative tribunal is required to be filed where the UNION OF INDIA v. MS. A. SHAINAMOL, IAS A B C D E F G H 406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 11 S.C.R. applicant is posted for the time being or the cause of action wholly or in part has arisen. The applicant in her Original Application has not laid any foundation as to how the Ernakulam Bench of the central administrative tribunal will have the Date of decision : 22-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/11480/2018 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 47 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs ILMO DEVI & ANR. – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 1158 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA sought regularization – Claim rejected by central administrative tribunal , though with certain directions – Writ petitions filed by both the parties – High Court inter alia directed the appellants to reformulate regularization policy and to take a decision to sanction the post in a phased manner the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No. 9167 of 2007 and CWP No.6854 of 2008 by which the High Court has modified the judgment and order passed by the learned central administrative tribunal in O.A. No.886/CH/2005 and consequently has Date of decision : 07-10-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5689/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 48 | AMIT SACHAN & ANR. Vs BAR COUNCIL OF UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW & ORS. – [2021] 9 S.C.R. 29 Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,A.S. BOPANNA names of members who have casted their vote in last three years i.e., 2018, 2019 and 2020. (III) The Central Bar Association, Lucknow Bar Association, State Public Services Tribunal Bar Association, central administrative tribunal Bar Association and Armed Forces Tribunal Bar Association are Date of decision : 24-09-2021 | Case Number : SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)/15349/2021 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 49 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs DALBIR SINGH – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 800 Judge Name: HEMANT GUPTA,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the central administrative tribunal . In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into Date of decision : 21-09-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5848/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 50 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1161 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY Railways (Field Office/Zonal Railways) made claim for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (“CSSS”)/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service (“RBSSS”)/ central administrative tribunal (“CAT”) – Held: There is no continued history of, 1971, the Central Secretariat Stenographers are governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules, 2010 and the Stenographers in the central administrative tribunal are governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with which the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the Date of decision : 31-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/914/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 51 | COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs RAJ KUMAR – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 4 Judge Name: K.M. JOSEPH,S. RAVINDRA BHAT various orders, which were impugned in separate proceedings by the candidates, the central administrative tribunal (CAT) allowed the applications of the candidates, upholding their pleas, and quashing the orders of the Screening Committees. All the orders of the CAT were impugned by the appellant Date of decision : 25-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4960/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 52 | NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs DR. RAM NARESH SHARMA & ORS. – [2021] 8 S.C.R. 79 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HRISHIKESH ROY and order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the High Court of Delhi whereby the Court upheld the common final order dated 24.08.2017 of the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short] and dismissed the petitions filed by the North Delhi Date of decision : 03-08-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4578/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 53 | DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICES SELECTION BOARD & ANR. Vs SEEMA KAPOOR – [2021] 6 S.C.R. 517 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HEMANT GUPTA considered as a departmental candidate for appointment by way of direct recruit – Orders passed by the High Court and central administrative tribunal , set aside. Jai Prakash Wadhwa & Ors. vs Lt. Governor, Delhi Admn. & Anr. (1997) 11 SCC 174 – referred to. Case Law Reference (1997) 11 SCC 174 present appeal is to an order passed by the Delhi High Court on 20.2.2019 affirming the order passed by the central administrative tribunal , Principal Bench, New Delhi on 5.9.2018 whereby an original application (OA) filed by the respondent herein was allowed, holding that she was entitled to age Date of decision : 22-07-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4461/2021 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 54 | English ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs BIBHU PRASAD SARANGI AND OTHERS – [2021] 7 S.C.R. 13 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench1 dated 13 March 2019. The 1 “Tribunal” A B C D E F G H 15 Tribunal had directed the appellant to reconsider the case of the first respondent for promotion to the IAS in accordance with the vacancies for 2015 by reconvening a meeting of the Date of decision : 05-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/821/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 55 | UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs P. BALASUBRAHMANAYAM – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 160 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,HRISHIKESH ROY ), ADG(Vig-II) & ADG(Vig-III), Postal Directorate. 7. Guard Filed. Sd/- (P.H. PILLAI) SECTION OFFICER(VIG)” 3. In this background, the respondent assailed the Memo by filing OA No. 421 of 2015 before the central administrative tribunal at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”). The Date of decision : 04-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3592/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 56 | SACHIN KUMAR & ORS. Vs DELHI SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION BOARD (DSSSB) & ORS. – [2021] 2 S.C.R. 1073 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,M.R. SHAH irregularities in the examination – An FIR was registered at Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) u/s. 13(1)(d) of Corruption Act r/w. s.120B of IPC – Dy. CM recommended for the cancellation of exam and a notification was issued for cancellation of exam – central administrative tribunal set aside the and novel attempts to suborn the legitimacy of recruitment processes have come to the fore. The Delhi High Court in the present case upheld the view of the central administrative tribunal (“Tribunal”) that the cancellation of the entire process was invalid but it confined the relief to six Date of decision : 03-03-2021 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/639/2021 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 57 | THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (INDIA GROUP) Vs UNION OF INDIA – [2021] 1 S.C.R. 799 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT tenure and age limits for members and chairpersons of 19 tribunals (including the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal; Securities Appellate Tribunal, Competition Commission of India, CESTAT, Railway Claims Tribunal, central administrative tribunal , Debt Recovery Tribunal, Debt Recoveries Appellate Date of decision : 12-02-2021 | Case Number : MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION/2219/2020 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 58 | MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2020] 2 S.C.R. 246 Judge Name: L. NAGESWARA RAO,HEMANT GUPTA,S. RAVINDRA BHAT of the Advocates from being considered for appointment as judicial members in a majority of Tribunals by the 2020 Rules. It was argued that in respect of seven tribunals (such as central administrative tribunal , Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Customs Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, etc Date of decision : 27-11-2020 | Case Number : WRIT PETITION (CIVIL)/804/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 59 | THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Vs HEEM SINGH – [2020] 13 S.C.R. 951 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDIRA BANERJEE the limitations on its power of judicial review. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India7, a two judge Bench of this Court had to assess whether the central administrative tribunal had exceeded its power of judicial review by overturning the findings of a departmental enquiry by re-appreciating the Date of decision : 29-10-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3340/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 60 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer RAMA NAND AND ORS. Vs CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. – [2020] 6 S.C.R. 19 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,AJAY RASTOGI,ANIRUDDHA BOSE genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues.” [Para 18][27-F] 3. The benefits of ACP Scheme cannot be held applicable to the appellants and consequently the High Court was right in interfering with the order of the central administrative tribunal . [Para RTOs would amount to a promotion or whether it was a mere reorganisation and the appellants were entitled to the ACP separately in terms of the ACP Scheme. 3. The appellants filed OA No. 983/1995 before the central administrative tribunal (“CAT”), Principal Bench, New Delhi and succeeded in Date of decision : 06-08-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/5829/2012 | Disposal Nature : Dismissed |
| 61 | NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs KAVINDER AND OTHERS – [2020] 6 S.C.R. 13 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,INDU MALHOTRA,K.M. JOSEPH post-graduate degree or diploma in social work/ Labour Welfare/ Industrial Relations/ Personnel Management/ Any other allied subjects – Respondent-candidate declared ineligible for the post – central administrative tribunal held the candidate as eligible for appointment to the post as he jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, affirmed a judgment and order of the central administrative tribunal at its Principal Bench at New Delhi, by which the first respondent A B C D E F G H 15 was held to be qualified for appointment to the post of Labour Welfare Superintendent Date of decision : 21-07-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/232/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 62 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer NISHA PRIYA BHATIA Vs UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – [2020] 10 S.C.R. 596 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI order of compulsory retirement of the appellant, thereby reversing the order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the central administrative tribunal (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 50 of 2010 quashing the order of compulsory retirement and directing reinstatement of the appellant back in service Date of decision : 24-04-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2365/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 63 | English മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs M. V. MOHANAN NAIR – [2020] 7 S.C.R. 851 Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The instant batch of appeals have been filed assailing the orders of various High Courts dismissing petitions filed by the appellants, thereby upholding decisions rendered by different Benches of central administrative tribunal granting financial Pal was working in the post of Photocopier w.e.f. 12.10.1986 in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590/- in the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh. The post of Photocopier is an isolated post. Upon introduction of the ACP Scheme in the year 1999, on completion of twelve years Date of decision : 05-03-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/2016/2020 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 64 | English ଓଡ଼ିଆ – Odia Disclaimer SHRI GOVINDA CHANDRA TIRIA Vs SIBAJI CHARAN PANDA & ORS. – [2020] 1 S.C.R. 709 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,K.M. JOSEPH ”. Thus, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and has to be set aside. [Paras 17-19][719-F-G; 720- A-B] 1.3 It is noted with some regret that the Union of India, having taken a categorical stand before the central administrative tribunal , endeavoured to possibly help respondent No.1 by Supreme Court (the latter part is not an aspect which we are examining). The final seniority list was published on 3.7.2001, maintaining the provisional seniority list and thus respondent No.1 filed an Original Application NO.584/2001 before the central administrative tribunal , Cuttack Bench Date of decision : 05-02-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/3542/2010 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 65 | D. RAGHU AND OTHERS Vs R. BASAVESWARUDU AND OTHERS ETC. – [2020] 5 S.C.R. 74 Judge Name: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,K.M. JOSEPH . In Arriving at this conclusion, the Tribunal has drawn support undoubtedly from the A B C D E F G H 83 views expressed by the central administrative tribunal , Chandigarh, the central administrative tribunal , Madras and the High Court of Bombay. [Paras 88, 89] [158-C-H; 159-A-D] 4.1 C D E F G H 96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 5 S.C.R. cases arise out of Original Applications (O.A.s) filed before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Hyderabad and the Orders of the Tribunal in the cases being questioned in a batch of Writ Petitions. As far as Civil Appeal Nos Date of decision : 05-02-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1970/2009 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 66 | DHANSAI SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. – [2020] 1 S.C.R. 120 Judge Name: A.M. KHANWILKAR,DINESH MAHESHWARI Court was pleased to set aside the relief of gratuity given to that person by the central administrative tribunal and the High Court. In other words, the coordinate Bench of this Court opined that a daily-rated Mazdoor who has been regularized but did not have qualifying service in terms of Date of decision : 21-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/564/2020 | Disposal Nature : Matter referred to larger bench |
| 67 | SIDDARAJU Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. – [2020] 1 S.C.R. 1175 Judge Name: R.F. NARIMAN,ANIRUDDHA BOSE,V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN particular. Since the reference has been disposed of by us today, contempt petitions be listed for hearing. Civil Appeal No. 1567 OF 2017: 12. Application for impleadment in C.A. 1567/2017 is allowed. 13. This matter arises out of the order of the central administrative tribunal , Bangalore Bench Date of decision : 15-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/1567/2017 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 68 | UNION OF INDIA & ORS Vs G RAMESH – [2020] 4 S.C.R. 476 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HRISHIKESH ROY Application (OA) filed before the central administrative tribunal , Hyderabad – Representation rejected – On being moved afresh, the Tribunal held that upon the dismissal of the candidate who was selected and appointed, the respondent had right to be appointed as postman– Order affirmed by the High Date of decision : 09-01-2020 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/140/2020 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 69 | NORTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Vs HARLEEN KAUR & ORS. – [2019] 18 S.C.R. 896 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,HRISHIKESH ROY benefits shall be with effect from the date of the judgment of the central administrative tribunal i.e. with effect from 1 October 2015. However, we clarify that the respondents would be entitled to notional pay fixation and continuity of service. 8. Subject to the aforesaid modification, the appeal Date of decision : 22-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8974/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 70 | English हिन्दी – Hindi Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY & ORS. Vs UDAI BHAN SINGH – [2019] 17 S.C.R. 527 Judge Name: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,AJAY RASTOGI authority by its order dated 9 March 1992 came to the conclusion that the charge against the respondent was proved and that it warranted his dismissal from service. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate authority, the respondent instituted proceedings before the central administrative tribunal at proved against the respondent would warrant dismissal from service. An appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority was dismissed by the appellate authority on 28 November 2008. 8. On 18 May 2009, the central administrative tribunal dismissed OA No.151 of 2009 instituted by the Date of decision : 21-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/9303/2013 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 71 | BAIDYANATH YADAV Vs ADITYA NARAYAN ROY & ORS. – [2019] 15 S.C.R. 427 Judge Name: MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR,AJAY RASTOGI No. 1 approached the central administrative tribunal , Patna Bench seeking the quashing of the Appellant’s appointment, and directions for the Department of Agriculture to recommend Respondent No. 1’s name to the State Screening Committee, for the State Screening Committee to recommend his name Date of decision : 19-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8847/2019 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 72 | English தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs JAWAHAR SANTHKUMAR AND OTHERS – [2019] 14 S.C.R. 628 Judge Name: R. BANUMATHI,A.S. BOPANNA,HRISHIKESH ROY of respondent nos.4 & 5 – First respondent’s name could not be included in the Select List of 2004 – Respondent nos.4 & 5 appointed by the Government of India – Challenged by the first respondent before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench – Rejected – Review application included in the Select List have been appointed by the Government of India by Notification dated 29.04.2005. 3. Aggrieved by his non-appointment to the IAS, the first respondent filed OA No.749 of 2006 before the central administrative tribunal (CAT), Madras Bench. The said application was Date of decision : 15-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/4626/2009 | Disposal Nature : Appeals(s) allowed |
| 73 | English മലയാളം – Malayalam Disclaimer ROJER MATHEW Vs SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. & ORS. – [2019] 16 S.C.R. 1 Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,N.V. RAMANA,D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,DEEPAK GUPTA,SANJIV KHANNA resolve. From the compilation of the learned Attorney General, it appears that the central administrative tribunal , the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, the Armed Forces Tribunal, the National Green Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal would require immediate attention. While Date of decision : 13-11-2019 | Case Number : CIVIL APPEAL/8588/2019 | Disposal Nature : Disposed off |
| 74 | English தமிழ் – Tamil Disclaimer UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Vs GANDIBA BEHERA – [2019] 13 S.C.R. 1136 Judge Name: RANJAN GOGOI,DEEPAK GUPTA,ANIRUDDHA BOSE Leave to Appeal. 3. All these appeals have reached this Court from decisions of different Benches of the central administrative tribunal and thereafter judgments of the High Courts on a common question of law. The dispute in these appeals is as to whether services rendered by the employees in designations being the short form of Gramin Dak Sevaks is what they are known as at present. 5 |
This post first appeared on Jabalpur Advocate: Best Jabalpur Advocate Top Jabalpur Lawyer High Court DRT, please read the originial post: here
