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

2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1010

NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
COURT HALL NO: II
Hearing Through: VC and Physical (Hybrid) Mode
CORAM: SHRI. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ – HON’BLE MEMBER (J)
CORAM: SHRI. SANJAY PURI - HON’BLE MEMBER (T)
 ATTENDANCE-CUM-ORDER SHEET OF THE HEARING OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL,
 HYDERABAD BENCH, HELD ON 25.02.2025 at 10:30 AM
TRANSFER PETITION NO.
COMPANY PETITION/APPLICATION NO. IA(IBC)(Liq) No. 21/2024 in Company Petition (IB)
398/7/HDB/2022
NAME OF THE COMPANY Indore Dewas Tollways Ltd
NAME OF THE PETITIONER(S) Union Bank of India S A M Branch
NAME OF THE RESPONDENT(S) Indore Dewas Tollways Ltd
UNDER SECTION 7 of IBC
ORDER
IA(IBC)(Liq) No. 21/2024
Orders pronounced, recorded vide separate sheets. In the result, the IA(IBC)(Liq)
No. 21/2024 is allowed and disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER (T) MEMBER (J)
NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH - II
IA (IBC) (LIQUIDATION) No.21 of 2024
in
CP(IB) No. 398/7/HDB/2022
[Under Section 33 read with Section 34 of IBC, 2016 & 60(5) ]
In the matter of
M/s. INDORE DEWAS TOLLWAYS LIMITED
Between:
Madhu Sudhanarao Mallipaddi,
Insolvency Professional & RP
IBBI/IPA001/IP-02633/2022-2023/14081
R/o. 502, H.No. 8-3-966/16, KOR Residency,
Nagarjuna Nagar, Srinagar Colony,
Behind State Bank of India,
Hyderabad – 500 073.
…. Applicant/Resolution Professional
1. M/s Union Bank of India,
Sam Branch, 3rd Floor,
Andhra bank Buildings, Koti
Hyderabad- 500 068.
2. Punjab National Bank
Zonal Satra Hyderabad
1
st Floor, My Home Jupally Complex,
Greedlands, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad- 500 016.
3. State Bank of India
 Stressed Assets Management Branch Secunderabad
 5-9-76, 2nd & 3rd Floor, Prabhat Towers,
 Opp. SBI, LHO, Amaravathi,
 Besides Slate School, Chappel Road,
 Gunfoundry, Hyderabad – 500 001.
National Company Law Tribunal Hyderabad Bench II
I.A. (IBC) (Liquidation) No 21 of 2024 in
CP (IB) No.398/7/HDB/2022
Date of Order: 25.02.2025
2
4. India Infrastructure Finance Corporation Limited
 India Infrastructure Finance Company Ltd.
 Registered Office at: 5th Floor,
 Plate A&B, Office Block 2, NBCC Tower,
 East Kidwai Nagar, New Delhi – 110023.
 …Respondents/CoC Members
In the matter of:
M/s Union Bank of India,
SAM Branch, 3rd Floor,
Andhra Bank Buildings, Koti,
Hyderabad- 500 068.
…Financial Creditor
Versus
M/s. Indore Dewas Tollways Limited,
6-3-1090, B-1, TSR Towers,
Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad- 500 082.
 …. Corporate Debtor
Date of Order: 25.02.2025
Coram:
SHRI. RAJEEV BHARDWAJ, HON’BLE MEMBER JUDICIAL
SHRI. SANJAY PURI, HON'BLE MEMBER TECHNICAL
Counsels/Parties Present:
For the Petitioners
For the Respondents
:
:
Mr. Ch. Srinivasulu, Counsel for the Resolution
Professional.
Madhu Sudhanarao Mallipaddi, Resolution
Professional.
Mr. G. P. Yash Vardhan, Ld. Counsel for the
Respondents No. 1 to 4.

Advocates:
Mr. Faheem Shokat Butt, Mr. Sudesh Magotra, AAG

The court held that the applicant, being qualified, must be appointed to a higher post under compassionate grounds, as failure to do so constituted discrimination against similarly situated individuals.

Headnote:(A) Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 - Rule 3(1) - Appointment of applicant to higher post in Health Department - Claim for appointment as Extension Educator or Health Educator rejected on grounds of qualification - Court found that respondents failed to comply with statutory duty to appoint applicant to a non-gazetted post - Discrimination against applicant noted as similarly situated individuals were appointed to higher posts - Court directed appointment of applicant to Health Educator post with consequential benefits. (Paras 5, 9, 12, 14)

(B) Discrimination in appointments - Equal treatment under law - State must provide uniform treatment to similarly situated individuals - Failure to do so constitutes violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 8, 10, 11)

(C) Acceptance of lower post - Acceptance of appointment on a lower post does not preclude a claim for a higher post if qualified - Statutory rules must be followed regardless of prior acceptance. (Paras 6, 10)

ORDER

(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Singh Dogra, Member-J)

1. The applicant had initially approached the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu by filing SWP No.561/2018 praying for following relief: -

“A. CERTIORARI; So as to quash order impugned bearing No.DHSJ/Legal 10938-40 dated 24.11.2017 passed by Director Health Services Jammu whereby the claim of petitioner for the higher post of Extension Educator or Health Educator in the Health Department retrospectively in terms of Rule 3(1) of J&K (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 i.e. SRO 43/1994 has been illegally and arbitrary rejected.

B. MANDAMUS; So as to command and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of either Extension Educator or Health Educator or any higher post than Class-IV on the analogy of number of other similarly circumstanced persons alongwith all the consequential benefits.”

2. After the reorganization of State of Jammu and Kashmir into Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and in view of Notification No.G.S.R. 267(E) dated 29.04.2020 read with Notification No.G.S.R. 317(E) dated 28.05.2020 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the lis regarding service disputes of the employees of U.T of J&K and Ladakh was conferred upon this Tribunal and while considering the said fact, the record of SWP No.561/2018 was ordered to be transferred by the Hon’ble High Court to this Tribunal on 04.08.2020 and re-numbered as Transferred Application No.61/8618/2020.

3. Facts of the case: -

(i) The father of applicant died in harness on 22.06.2006 while working as Senior Pharmacist in Health Department. Applicant being graduate at that relevant period of time as he completed his B.A Degree on 12.07.2006 from University of Jammu and thus applied under SRO 43/1994 on 19.10.2006 for his appointment as Junior Health Inspector.

(ii) The respondents stated to applicant that he cannot be appointed on any post other than Class-IV post, as such compelled the applicant to file another application seeking appointment on Class-IV post.

(iii) Vide order No.Es-5/NG/307/SRO 43/6629-31 dated 14.02.2007 issued by Director Health Services Jammu, the applicant was appointed as Class-IV in the pay scale of Rs.2550-3200.

(iv) The applicant has no other option except to accept the said appointment as Class-IV in order to sustain his family who were solely dependent upon the deceased father of applicant but the applicant continuously pursued his matter for higher post before the respondents.

(v) Aggrieved of inaction of respondents in mitigating the grievances of the applicant, he thus invoked the jurisdiction of Hon’ble High Court of Jammu and Kashmir through the medium of SWP No.1443/2015 seeking direction upon the respondents to appoint him to the post of either Extension Educator or Health Educator in the Health Department in terms of Rule 3(1) of Jammu & Kashmir (Compassionate Appointment) Rules, 1994 i.e. SRO 43 of 1994 w.e.f. the date he has been appointed as Class-IV alongwith all the consequential benefits. The applicant also sought direction upon the respondents to appoint him under SRO 43 of 1994 to higher post than Class-IV on the analogy of number of other similarly circumstanced persons alongwith all other consequential benefits.

(vi) The Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 15.05.2015 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with the direction to Director Health Services, Jammu to consider and decide the claim of applicant for appointment to a vacancy in the lowest rank of Non-Gazetted service in terms of Rule 3 of J&K Compassionate Appointment Rules, 1994 in view of the fact that the applicant is graduate and also directed to consider his claim in light of Judgment reported as 2011 (2) JKJ 475 titled Mohd. Ayoub Mir V/s State & Ors. wherein the Hon’ble High Court has interpreted Rule 3(1) as was in vogue at that time and held that the responden

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top