Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member, M.L. Srivastava, Administrative Member
S. Vanarasu – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of promotions and seniority dispute. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicant's claim on improper reservation and catch-up rule. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. respondents defend roster-based promotions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. 3rd respondent justifies post-based roster application. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. court notes identical promotion dates restore seniority. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 6. explanation of catch-up rule via supreme court precedents. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. catch-up rule applies for ur vacancy promotions. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 8. oa allowed; order impugned communication set aside. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)
The applicant has filed the OA challenging the impugned communication, dated 07.10.2014 whereby the promotion given to the 3rdand 4threspondents to the post of Master Craftsman (MCM) was justified by the respondents 1 & 2. A further direction is sought by the applicant to grant proper seniority to him in the post of Highly Skilled and promotion to the post o MCM with all consequential monetary benefits.
2. The factual matrix of the case are as follows:
The applicant is presently working as Highly Skilled G
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
