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

2008 Supreme(MP) 427

R.K.GUPTA
HEMCHANDRA PANDEY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M P – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.G.DHANDE, Harish Agnihotri, Sharad Verma, SUJOY PAUL,

Judgment

( 1. ) THE present petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order Annexure P-10 dated 21. 3. 2003 whereby the services rendered by the respondent No. 3 in his parent department as Research Officer have been counted for the purposes of reckoning seniority to respondent No. 3 after his absorption on the post of Assistant Director with the borrowing department.

( 2. ) THE facts leading to the present petition are that the petitioner No. l was working with the Panchayat and Social Welfare Department. He was sent on deputation with the respondents. The petitioner No. 1 was given ad-hoc promotion in his parent department on 24. 4. 1985 as a Leprosy Welfare Officer. Subsequently, by an order dated 15. 8. 1986 when the new Directorate i. e. the Woman and Child development was opened the petitioner No. 1 was sent on deputation. At that time the petitioner was holding the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000.

( 3. ) SO far as the petitioner No. 2 is concerned, initially he was appointed in the tribal Welfare Department on 19. 3. 1979. By an order dated 15. 8. 1986 the petitioner No. 2 was transferred on deputation to the Woman and Child Development department. He was promoted i
















































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