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

2001 Supreme(Ker) 165

K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, G.SASIDHARAN
Chandrasekharan Pillay – Appellant
Versus
Krithivasan – Respondent


Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

The question that has come up for consideration is whether the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting Contempt Petition (Civil) filed under S.17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with R.17 of the Contempt of Court (CAT) Rules 1992 is amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Arts.226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. Petitioner herein filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 9 of 2000 to initiate action for contempt of Administrative Tribunal's proceedings against General Manager, Southern Railway and Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway who were made eo nomine parties in the Contempt Petition.

3. Petitioner had filed O.A. No. 483 of 1991 for a declaration that principles of reservation could be applied only on cadre strength. He also sought for a declaration that seniority among employees belonging to reserved and non-reserved categories of employees in the lower category would be reflected in the higher post notwithstanding the earlier promotion obtained on the basis of reservation. That O.A. was disposed of along with several other cases granting the following reliefs:

a ) Principle of reservati















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