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

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2578

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
A B Prabhu Raj – Appellant
Versus
Msme – Respondent
O.A./1424/2024



(RESERVED ON 11.02.2026)

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD Pronounced on this the 25th day of February, 2026.

Original Application No.1424 of 2024 Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J)

Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A)

A B Prabhu Raj S/o A. Bal Raj, aged about 57 years, General Manager-SG, NTSC Howrah, R/o 226/253, Rani Mandi, Attar-Suiya, District-Prayagraj-

211003. ....Applicant By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari VERSUS

1- Union of India through The Secretary, Ministry of Micro Small and Medium Enterprises, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.

2- Union of India through By The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.

3- Director (P&M), The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.

4- Director(Finance), The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.

5- Chief General Manager-SG, Work/Estate and Technology Departments, The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.

6- General Manager-SG,CMD-SECRETARIAT, International Co-op And Human Resources Departments, The National Small Industries Corporation Ltd. NSIC Bhawan, Okhla Industrial Estate, Head Office, New Delhi-110020.

..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra and Shri S K Om

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member (A):

Heard ShriDharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant andShri Mahendra Prasad Mishra and Shri S K Om, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This Original Application is filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, seeking following reliefs:-

8(i) To issue an order, rule or direction for quashing and setting- aside the impugned orders dated 20.11.2024 passed by the answering respondent/competent authority by illegal, unlawful and arbitrary manner (Annexure No.A-1 in compilation no.I to this original application).

(ii) To issue an order rule or direction, to the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits and pay the entire salary along with the interest.

(iii) To issue an order rule or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to which the applicant may be found entitled under law.

(iv) To award the cost of the original application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.

3. The Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are thatWhile serving as General Manager (SG) at Hyderabad, the applicant was transferred to NTSC Howrah on 11.08.2023 and relieved on 18.08.2023; he challenged the transfer before the Hon’ble Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Telangana in OA No. 491/2023, which initially granted a stay on 21.08.2023 but later dismissed the OA on 29.09.2023. Due to serious illness of his mother, wife, and himself, he applied for medical leave from 03.10.2023; meanwhile, a show cause notice dated 23.11.2023 and a charge sheet dated 09.02.2024 were issued, and though he participated in the enquiry, no final decision was taken. His APARs for the preceding five years were “Excellent” and “Very Good.” After obtaining a fitness certificate, he joined NTSC Howrah on 28.10.2024, but charge was not handed over to him and he was instead posted to MINT Cell. Despite submitting representations for regularization of medical leave and salary release, his leave was not sanctioned. Subsequently, by order dated 20.11.2024, he was compulsorily retired under the CRS Scheme framed under FR 56(i) vide circular dated 10.04.2018, allegedly without adherence to the prescribed grounds of medical unfitness, inefficiency, or doubtful integrity, leading to the present Original Application challenging the impugned compulsory retirement order.Hence this Original Application. 4. On the other hand, the Respondents have

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 Back to top