Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Sudhi Ranjan Mishra, J, Pramod Kumar Das, A
Nepal Mahakur – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. representation for promotion (Para 1) |
| 2. counterarguments on maintainability (Para 2) |
| 3. need for necessary parties (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. settled seniority principles (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
.....Respondents For the Applicant : Mr. B. Pujari, B.K. Nayak, Counsel For the Respondents : Mr. B. Samantaray, Counsel O R D E R SUDHI RANJAN MISHRA, MEMBER (J):
The gist of the matter is that the applicant submitted representation on 01.12.2017 praying inter alia to implement the OFB’s Order dated 25.01.2011, 05.08.2011 and 11.12.2012 by way of giving him promotion to HS-II in comparison to his juniors, who were promoted vide FO Part-III No. 269 dated 29.04.2011 and No. 29 dated 20.01.2012 against the reservation percentage with all consequential benefits. He has also raised a grievance Sl. No. 02 dated 12.01.2018 to the above extent. The said grievance was considered and rejected vide letter dated 23.02.2018. Thereafter, promotion was given to 125 industrial employees to DBW/HSG-II vide Office Order No. 932 dated 07.03.2018; after which the applicant has filed this OA on 07.09.2018 praying inter alia to direct the respondents (Resp. No.3) to revis
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
