Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R.N. Singh, Member (J), Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Shalini Bansal – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through its Secretary Ministry of Labour & Employment – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant's employment history and vrs withdrawal timeline. (Para 1 , 2 , 8) |
| 2. withdrawal of vrs valid before intended date; challenge to rule 43 proviso. (Para 4 , 6) |
| 3. applicant's prior conduct justifies rejection under rule 43(6) proviso. (Para 5) |
| 4. rule 43(6) proviso valid; binds withdrawal beyond 15 days. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. 2021 rules apply; oa dismissed for non-compliance. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
ORDER
Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) Quash and set aside the order dated 01.07.2024 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 10.07.2024 (Annexure A/2) and, (b) if need be, quash or read down proviso to sub rule (6) of rule 43 CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 (Annexure A/3) and (c) direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service, immediately and (d) Accord all consequential benefits including monetary (back wages) and seniority benefits (e) award costs of proceedings (f) any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Facts of the case as state
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
