Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER, TALWANT SINGH
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Diana George – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background on the tribunal order and related petitions. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioners' grievances regarding tribunal directives. (Para 2) |
| 3. modification of tribunal's order and compliance directives. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. conclusion and directions on the contempt petition. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)
[Court hearing convened via video-conferencing on account of COVID-19]
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 02.11.2020, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short, "the Tribunal") in O.A. 249/2016.
1.1. The aforementioned O.A. was disposed of, in terms of the judgement of the Tribunal, dated 21.03.2018, passed in O.A. no. 1596/2017, titled Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India.
1.2. To be noted, notice, in this petition, was issued on 14.07.2021. Since then, the respondents have filed their counter-affidavit in the matter.
2. Mr. Harish Kumar Garg, who appears on behalf of the petitioners, says that the petitioners are aggrieved by the operative directions contained in the impugned judgement, which requires them to follow, the Tribunal.s own judgement in 'Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India'.
2.1. To be noted, qua this judge
Court mandates compliance with Supreme Court rulings on affirmative action for Scheduled Castes, emphasizing the need for quantifiable data on backwardness.
Tribunals must provide reasoned judgments when closing cases; failure to do so invalidates their orders, necessitating further adjudication.
The court emphasized that dismissing a case without merit-based reasoning is improper, necessitating remand for a fresh adjudication.
The court emphasized the importance of a discussion on merits in the adjudication of the matter and the need for both sides to have the opportunity to present their respective stands before the Tribu....
A decision must be rendered by the same individuals who heard a case to ensure procedural fairness and consistency in adjudication.
A party cannot claim ignorance of judicial decisions when there is sufficient public notice of court proceedings, especially when they are familiar with judicial processes.
The court has the authority to set aside an impugned order and direct the implementation of a judgment from another court if the circumstances warrant it.
The court established that procedural integrity must be maintained in administrative hearings, emphasizing that all parties should be adequately notified and heard on issues regarding the reopening o....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
