Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
Darshan Lal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner seeks pay re-fixation and appeals dismissal. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. tribunal rejected petition citing insufficient reasoning. (Para 5) |
| 3. impugned order lacks reasoning and cannot be sustained. (Para 6) |
| 4. order set aside; case restored for fresh hearing. (Para 7) |
| 5. parties to appear for directions on specified date. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral)
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 30.11.2021, whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal).
2. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for respondents.
3. With the consent of parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. Petitioner had filed the subject petition seeking re-fixation of the pay of the petitioner and setting aside of communication whereby his pay had been fixed.
5. We notice that the Tribunal apart from noticing the contentions of the petitioner as well as the respondents in the last paragraph has rejected the petition holding as under:
"10. Keeping in view the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties as well as perusing the documents available on reco
A tribunal's decisions must provide adequate reasoning; a lack thereof renders the decision unsustainable, necessitating remittance for reevaluation.
The court has the authority to revive an Original Application for further consideration and can remand the matter for fresh consideration by the Tribunal.
Tribunals must adequately consider repeated legal claims; dismissal at the admission stage unsupported by substantial reasoning is improper.
The court's decision was influenced by the implementation of previous judgments and the direction to the respondents to take a final decision in parity with the previous cases.
It is admitted position from the pleadings and it has been fairly and squarely admitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that no show cause notice was given to the applicant before reducing....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by converting itself into an administrative authority and issuing directions out....
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
