Back
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
S. Sujatha, Member (J), Sanjiv Kumar, Member (A)
Shiji Varkey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common issues in clubbed oas; factual background of applicants' service and impugned orders. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. applicants argue oms discriminatory; rely on delhi hc judgments for pay protection. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents defend oms as valid policy; distinction between interview and exam-based selection justified. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. core issue: validity of impugned orders denying pay protection under dopt oms. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. delhi hc judgments (sanjog kapoor, rakesh semalty) declare om 1998 arbitrary. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. distinction between interview and exam selection violates articles 14 & 16. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 7. precedents confirm artificial classification invalid; pay protection must be granted. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 8. impugned orders set aside; direct pay protection with consequential benefits. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
O R D E R
PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
1.Since common and akin issues are involved, these matters are clubbed, heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, OA No. 438/2025 is taken as the lead case. The reliefs sought in these OAs are common and the same reads thus:
“(I) Call for records from the respondents;
(II) I
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
