Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, J, Anjali Bhawra, A
Satdev Vashisth – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's service history and continuous officiation as superintendent since 2017 with recommendations for promotion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. excellent acrs, violation of dpc norms, and inapplicability of deemed abolition to occupied promotional post. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondents' contention of deemed abolition under finance om applicable to promotional posts. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. rejoinder denying abolition; post functional, promotion consideration is fundamental right. (Para 15 , 16) |
| 5. court accepts continuous officiation, rejects deemed abolition, upholds dpc obligation under articles 14/16. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. directs dpc consideration w.e.f. 01.02.2018, sets aside abolition plea, no automatic promotion. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
O R D E R
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been directed against the following:-
(i) Against the inaction of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in not promoting the applicant to the post of Superintendent from the date the applicant has started officiating i.e. w.e.f. 29.08.2017 when the then
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
