Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

UNION OF INDIA versus SRI ORAON, CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR AND ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Union Of India v. Sri Oraon, Chief Parcel Supervisor And Ors. - WRIT - A No. 53779 of 1999 [2005] RD-AH 5250 (7 November 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 34

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 53779 of 1999

Union of India vs. Sri M. Oraon and another

....

Hon'ble Dr.B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 2.6.1999 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by which the claim petition of the respondent-employee had been allowed in part directing the present petitioner to reconsider his case for promotion under restructuring scheme by which a large number of persons junior to the said employee had been promoted. The Tribunal had rejected the case of the present petitioner that earlier the said employee had been promoted on ad hoc basis and subsequently reverted, therefore his case was not considered for promotion.

The ad hoc promotion or reversion has nothing to do with the consideration for regular promotion. In all circumstances, the department could have placed record of the said employee before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of regular promotion and could take the decision only on the recommendation of the said committee. Undoubtedly the persons junior to the said employee had been considered for regular promotion and promoted with effect from 1.1.1984 and the case of the petitioner was not even referred to the said committee for consideration and he was accorded regular promotion subsequently in 1988. The judgment and order of the Tribunal does not require any interference for the reason that the case of the respondent employee could have been considered along with his juniors in 1984 itself.

In view of the above, we do not see any ground for interference with the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

Dated  7.11.2005

Rk/53779/99-2


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.