SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(SC) 109

M.H.KANIA, R.M.SAHAI
Union Of India: S. K. Arora – Appellant
Versus
M. P. Singh – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SUBBA RAO, C.V.SUBBA RAO, D.B.VOHRA, D.K.GARG, KAPIL SIBAL, M.S.GANESH, R.P.OBEROI

JUDGMENT

R.M. SAHAI, J. :- Seniority in services is usually irksome. But the nature of dispute amongst officers in Class A of Indian Defence Estates Service, who were promoted from Class B of Military and Cantonment service where they were working as Assistant Military Estates Officers (AMEO) and Assistant Military Estates Officers (Technical) (AMEOT), is slightly, unusual. That is why apart from correctness or otherwise of directions issued by the Tribunal (Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi) for redetermining seniority one of the issues debated was if this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India should interfere with orders of Tribunal if substantial justice has been done between parties. To this may be added, yet, another, namely, if the Union of India should have approached this Court by way of Special Leave Petition not for sake of justice or injustice. Legality or illegality of any provision but because it may have to pay few thousands, may be few lakhs more.

2. But, first, manner of appointment of two groups of officers and rules by which they were governed from time to time may he noticed as even though initially posts of both A















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top