Highlights
You are here: Home » Tag Archives: Delhi high court judgement on promotion

Tag Archives: Delhi high court judgement on promotion

High Court judgements

More: * Court Judgments
* Latest DOPT / CVC / RTI / MOF / CGHS / DPE / RBI Orders / Notifications /Circulars; News
* Latest Vigilance Related GOI/CVC Notifications/Office Orders/Circulars
Right to Information Circulars/Orders/Decisions
* CGHS Circulars/Empanelled Hospitals/Package Rates
* Public Sector Enterprises Service Rules and Other Rules/Circulars/Guidelines
* Verification of SC/ST/OBC Caste Status or Claims of SCs, STs and OBCs

LATEST JUDGEMENTS (New)
Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 – National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr.
- Hon’ble Bombay High Court has directed to give benefits of reservation to PWDs in the matter of promotion to posts in the IAS by applying the O.M. dated 29 December 2005 and subsequent Office Memorandum consistent with the aforesaid judgment dated 8 October 2013 of the Supreme Court.
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal 
- Sections 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
Gauhati High Court Judgment dated 06.11.2013 – Sh. Navandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. 
“CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946.”
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 – Union of India Vs. Anita Singh
- Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005
Delhi HC Judgement dated 28.10.2013 – J.K. Mittal Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr.
- Section 18 - Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided: “… it is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought.”
—————————————————————————————————–

RTI
Service Matters
Other Judgements

RTI 
Section 6(2)

  Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 – Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India (50.5 KiB, 125 hits)


Sec. 8 (1)(e)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (13.4 KiB, 353 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 09.11.2012 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. V.K. Shad and Others (40.3 KiB, 132 hits)

Sec. 8 (1)(j)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (13.4 KiB, 353 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 – Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (13.4 KiB, 256 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 06.11.2012 – UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain (176.3 KiB, 114 hits)

Section 18  
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has decided: “… it is expected that the Commission henceforth will decide the complaints on merits instead of directing the CPIO to provide the information which the complainant had sought.” 

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 28.10.2013 – J.K. Mittal Vs. Central Information Commission and Anr. (267.2 KiB, 61 hits)


——–

Service Matters 
Habitual Indebtedness

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 – G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 265 hits)

Reservation for PWDs

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 – National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 117 hits)

——-
Uncategorised

  Jharkhand High Court Judgment dated 11.07.2011 – Commissioner (Appeal) of Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi Vs Central Information Commission and Anr. (82.8 KiB, 110 hits)

  Bombay High Court judgement dated 11.10.2010 – Board of Management of Bombay Properties of Indian Institute of Science Vs. CIC & Union of India (115.0 KiB, 217 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 21.05.2010 – DDA v. Central Information Commission & another (394.3 KiB, 521 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 15.4.2010 – National Stock Exchange is a public authority (430.5 KiB, 186 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 15.2.2010 – Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission (27.0 KiB, 254 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 12.1.2010 – Secy. General, Supreme Court of India Vs. S.C. Agarwal (555.4 KiB, 250 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 16.4.2009 – Union of India (Passport Office) Vs. CIC & Ors (225.4 KiB, 216 hits)

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 03.04.2008 – WP No.419 of 2007 – Dr. Celsa Pinto, Panaji Vs. Goa State Information Commission (173.8 KiB, 199 hits)

OTHER JUDGEMENTS
Gauhati High Court – CBI is neither an organ nor a part of the DSPE and the CBI cannot be treated as a ‘police force’ constituted under the DSPE Act, 1946.”

  Gauhati High Court Judgment dated 06.11.2013 – Sh. Navandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Anr. (465.9 KiB, 94 hits)

  Judgement dated 28.02.2012 – Dr. Sahadeva Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (323.4 KiB, 135 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 – Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 274 hits)

  Judgement dated 2.7.2009 (414.6 KiB, 572 hits)

Note:- It may be noted that the information in this website is subject to the Disclaimer of Dtf.in. If you have a complaint with respect to any content published in this website, it may kindly be brought to our notice for appropriate action to remove such content as early as possible or publish the latest/updated content/event, if any, at info@dtf.in.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (30 votes cast)

CAT quashes compulsory retirement order of Dr. Sahadeva Singh …

CAT quashes compulsory retirement order of Dr. Sahadeva Singh

New Delhi, Sep 22, 2012

“Officer not given copy of the relevant UPSC advice”

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed a penalty order by the Department of Agriculture and Cooperation of the Union Ministry of Agriculture and reinstated a Deputy Commissioner (Crops) on the ground that the officer was not supplied in advance a copy of the advice of the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) on whose basis the bureaucrat was compulsorily retired from service.

The Disciplinary Authority of the Department had retired the officer, Sahadeva Singh, on a recommendation by the UPSC which had advised imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement from service on him.

The Disciplinary Authority had recommended an appropriate punishment against the officer admitting a report by the investigating officer holding him guilty of six charges of misconduct against him. Read more.

You may like to click on any of the following links:-

* DOPT/CVC/RTI/MOF/CGHS/DPE/RAILWAY/RBI/IRDA Circulars/Orders/Notifications/Guidelines and other Govt. Circulars/Orders/Notifications
* Circular dated 09.03.2012 – Training Course in Participatory Irrigation Management System for Paddies in Asian Countries (A) in Japan (22.5.2012 to 12.7.2012)
* Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) Circulars/Notifications/Office Orders/Guidelines
* Right to Information (RTI) – Rules/Notifications/Circulars/Guidelines/Orders/CIC Circulars/Directions/Decisions
* Department of Public Enterprise (DPE) Circulars/Instructions and Ministry of Railways Circulars/Instructions
* Education – Universities in India and Education-Related Acts/Rules/Circulars/Orders

Govt staff can’t be denied promotion arbitrarily: HC (Dr. Sahadeva Singh’s case)

New Delhi, March 05, 2012

Government employees can not be deprived of promotion "arbitrarily" and without any reasonable ground, the Delhi High Court has ruled.

delhi high court Holding that employees do not have "vested" right to promotion, a bench of Justices BD Ahmed and VK Jain noted, "It is true that no employee has a vested right to promotion, but respondents (employer) cannot act arbitrarily and without any reasonable excuse defer the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and, thereby, deprive an employee of his legitimate expectation for being considered for promotion to a post if he is eligible."

Reversing Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) decision denying promotion to a ministry of agriculture employee, the HC directed the government to treat Sahadeva Singh as promoted to the post of deputy commissioner (crops) from January 1, 2005. Read more.

To access a copy of the Delhi High Court judgement in the case of Dr. Sahadeva Singh Vs. Union of India and others, please click here.

To see General Budget 2012-13 & Economic Survey 2011-12 and Railway Budget 2012, please click here.

Calling ‘bitch’ amounts to sexual harassment: Madras high court

Mar 18, 2012

CHENNAI: Does calling a woman employee ‘bitch’ at the work place amount to sexual harassment? The Madras high court thinks so.

At a time when the National Commission for Women (NCW) chairman is facing flak for saying that a ‘sexy’ tag doesn’t amount to teasing or harassment, the Madras high court has said that dubbing women teachers ‘bitch’ by their male colleague does fall within the definition of ‘sexual harassment’. Read more.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 3.8/5 (18 votes cast)
Scroll To Top