Clause-7 of the letter dated 12-09-2013 provides that those serving on deputation may not be normally returned to their parent establishment, is not a rule to disable the promotions or to disable repatriation
“While granting interim relief for continuation in service, the Court or Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character was produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior”.
The benefit of Domestic Help Allowance is a retirement benefit and hence it will be included in the expression ‘pension’ as occurring in Section 2(gg) of High Court Judges (Conditions of Service) Act 1954.
The Court also said that the CAT, Ahmedabad, did not have jurisdiction under rule 6(1) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, as the show cause notice was issued from New Delhi.
Madras HC dismissed a plea filed by IRS Officer who supported Sri Lankan Tamils through a hunger strike and criticised the Indian government’s policies on the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR ELECTRICITY (ATE) Bureau of Energy Efficiency takes suo motu verification test on a sample refrigerator of Whirlpool India and
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of D.N. Patel, CJ and Jyoti Singh, J., held that the Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal
“When a person takes a chance and participates, thereafter he cannot, because the result is unpalatable, turn around to contend that the process was unfair or the selection committee was not properly constituted.”
Tripura High Court: The Division Bench of Akil Kureshi, CJ. and S.G. Chattopadhyay, J., dismissed a petition which challenged an order passed
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): The Bench of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and Mohd. Jamshed (Member) held that premature retirement does not
Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J., held that ‘service matter’ concerning the persons working in various Central Government Hospitals under the Ministry
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., while addressing the grievance of UPSC aspirants in regard to cancellation of interviews to be held
Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT): A Division Bench of Justice L. Narasimha Reddy (Chairman) and A.K. Bishnoi (Administrative Member) took Suo Motu cognizance
Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata: The Coram of Bidisha Banerjee (Judicial Member) and Nandita Chatterjee (Administrative Member) allowed the application granting the desired
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam: The Coram of P. Madhavan (Judicial Member) and K.V. Eapen (Administrative Member) disposed the application denying relief to
Delhi High Court: Jyoti Singh, J., refused to entertain a writ petition filed by a member of All India Services holding that the
Central Information Commission (CIC): A Bench comprising of Divya Prakash Sinha, Information Commissioner allowed an appeal and directed the CPIO to adequately
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the powers of the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the Bench of R. Banumathi