Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus VINOD KUMAR & ORS

Supreme Court Cases

1996 SCALE (5)696

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. VINOD KUMAR & ORS [1996] RD-SC 804 (15 July 1996)

RAMASWAMY, K.

RAMASWAMY, K.

G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION: 1996 SCALE (5)696

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

O R D E R Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

We have heard the learned counsel.

The only short question is whether the deviation from rule of granting promotion of 50% of the quota giving 2 years additional benefit to the Upper Division Clerks is valid in law? Sub-section [71](a) of Section 5-D of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 provides method of recruitment as under:

"7(a) The method of recruitment, salary and allowances, discipline and other conditions of service of the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Deputy Provident, Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and other officers and employees of the Central Board shall be such as may be specified by the Central Board in accordance with the Rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scales of pay.

Provided that where the Central Board is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters aforesaid, it shall obtain the prior approval of the Central Government." Under the proviso, where the Central Board is of the opinion that it is necessary to make a departure from the said rules or orders in respect of any of the matters enumerated above it is mandatory that it should obtain prior approval of the Central Government. Admittedly, prior approval was not obtained. On the other hand, ex post facto approval was obtained but in the teeth of the language of the proviso ex post facto approval is not an approval in the eye of law. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal had rightly held that the approval was not valid in law and the matter was kept at large and directed the appellant to issue notification afresh for recruitment in accordance With rules. We do not find any legality in the order.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.