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

2004 Supreme(SC) 236

MOHD. AHMED – Appellant
Versus
NIZAM SUGAR FACTORY – Respondent


( 1 ) BY means of this appeal, the judgment and the order passed by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dated 13/12/1999 has been impugned raising a grievance that the High Court is in error in not issuing a direction for making the payment of difference of the arrears of salary in respect of the promotion post to which the appellant was entitled as also directed by the learned Single Judge.

( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case for the purpose of considering the present controversy are that promotion to the post in supervisory B grade was due in the establishment of the respondent Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. The criterion for promotion as provided in Guideline 7 of the Guidelines governing conditions of the service of the employees of Nizam Sugar Factory Ltd. , for the post carrying scale of pay of Rs. 1500. 00-2000. 00 and below is seniority-cum-fitness. It appears that promotion exercise was undertaken and Respondent 2, namely, Lakshmipathi Raju was promoted, by order dated 25/6/1992. The abovesaid promotion was challenged by the present appellant Mohd. Ahmed and Smt Indumati Ganesh by filing Writ Petition No. 806 of 1992. Their case has been that the appellant Mohd. Ah




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