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
Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. –  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India
Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. - Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.” (Sections 4(1)(b), 7(9) and 19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act. 2005)
Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another
- “… … the first respondent-Commission clearly erred in passing the impugned order in this Writ Petition, directing the petitioner to furnish the details to the second respondent as well as sending a tabular statement listing all the complaints and representations received from the second respondent.”
Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 – Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others“… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma.”
  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta - The impugned order dated 13th October, 2011 imposing penalty on the PIO was set aside.
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.
SC: “Special leave petition is dismissed.” -  SC Order dated 12.09.2014 – Union of India and Others Vs. National Confederation for Develoopment of Disabled & Anr. (Arising out of final judgment and order dated 04.12.2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay)
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.”
Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 – Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others“…it should be ensured that the applicant files his proof of identity along with the application.”
Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. DhayalanInordinate delay in conducting inquiry can be a valid ground for quashing the charges’
—————————————————————————————————–

I. Family Law
— Maintenance/Alimony
II RTI
Section 2(f) * Section 3 * Section 4(1)(b) * Section 6(2) * Section 7(9) * Section 8(1)(e) * Section 8(1)(j) * Section 18 * Section 19(8)(a)(iv) * Section 20
To see Supreme Court Judgments relating to the RTI Act, please click here.

III. Service Matters

Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Habitual Indebtedness * Reservation for PWDs
To see Supreme Court Judgments on Service Matters, please click here.
IV. Other Judgements

I. Family Law
— Maintenance/Alimony

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 14.01.2015 – Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma (345.9 KiB, 84 hits)

II. RTI 
Section 2(f) * Section 2(h) * Section 3 * Section 4(1)(b) * Section 6(2) * Section 7(9) * Section 8(1)(e) * Section 8(1)(j) * Section 18 * Section 19(8)(a)(iv) * Section 20

Section 2(f)

  Madras High Court Judgement dated 17.09.2014 – PIO-Registrar (Admn.), High Court, Madras Vs. Central Information Commission, New Delhi & another (34.4 KiB, 552 hits)

Section 2(h)

—  Office of the Attorney General of India is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 10.03.2015 – Subhash Chandra Agrawal Vs. Office of Attorney General and R.K. Jain Vs. Office of Attorney General of India (487.4 KiB, 78 hits)

Section 3

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 02.11.2012 – Fruit & Merchant Union Vs. Chief Information Commissioner and others (158.6 KiB, 337 hits)

Section 4(1)(b)
Hon’ble Delhi High Court: “I find no infirmity with the impugned order in so far as it directs that the records may be maintained in a manner so that the information regarding the period for which the judgments are pending after being reserved, is available with the petitioner in future.”

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 203 hits)


Section 6(2)

  Calcutta High Court Judgement dated 20.11.2013 – Mr. Avishek Goenka Vs. Union of India (50.5 KiB, 321 hits)

Section 7(9)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 203 hits)

Sec. 8 (1)(e)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 683 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 09.11.2012 – Union of India & Ors. Vs. V.K. Shad and Others (40.3 KiB, 244 hits)

Sec. 8 (1)(j)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 08.11.2013 – UPSC Vs. Pinki Ganeriwal (167.0 KiB, 683 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 31.10.2013 – Union of India Vs. Anita Singh (197.8 KiB, 517 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 06.11.2012 – UPSC Vs. R.K. Jain (176.3 KiB, 171 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, 245 hits)


Section 19(8)(a)(iv)

  Delhi HC Judgement dated 04.12.2014 – The Registrar, Supreme Court of India Vs. Commodore Lokesh K. Batra and Ors. (474.0 KiB, 203 hits)

Section 20

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 20.02.2014 – Union of India Vs. Praveen Gupta (67.0 KiB, 352 hits)

——–

III. Service Matters
Compulsory Retirement * Delay in conducting departmental inquiry * Habitual Indebtedness * Reservation for PWDs

Compulsory Retirement
“… the order of compulsory retirement is not to be treated as a punishment and carries no stigma. The rule of compulsory retirement has been held to hold the balance between the rights of the individual government servant and the interest of the public administration.”

  Bombay High Court Judgement dated 07.05.2014 – Mahesh Prabhakar Kamat Vs. Kamba Transport Corporation Ltd., Goa, & Others (149.6 KiB, 463 hits)

Delay in conducting departmental inquiry

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 02.07.2012 – Union of India & Anr. Vs. B.A. Dhayalan (304.0 KiB, 553 hits)

Habitual Indebtedness

  Delhi High Court Judgment dated 21.12.2012 – G.C. Verma Vs. UOI and Ors. (47.7 KiB, 357 hits)

Reservation for PWDs

  Bombay HC judgement dated 04.12.2013 – National Confederation for Development of Disabled & Anr. (132.5 KiB, 1,406 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, 188 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, 284 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 21.05.2010 – DDA v. Central Information Commission & another (394.3 KiB, 655 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 15.4.2010 – National Stock Exchange is a public authority (430.5 KiB, 261 hits)

  Delhi High Court Judgement dated 15.2.2010 – Union of India Vs. Central Information Commission (27.0 KiB, 339 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 12.1.2010 – Secy. General, Supreme Court of India Vs. S.C. Agarwal (555.4 KiB, 311 hits)

  Delhi High Court judgement dated 16.4.2009 – Union of India (Passport Office) Vs. CIC & Ors (225.4 KiB, 278 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, 325 hits)

IV. 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, 249 hits)

  Judgement dated 28.02.2012 – Dr. Sahadeva Singh Vs. Union of India & Others (323.4 KiB, 211 hits)

  Punjab & Haryana High Court Judgement dated 15.07.2011 – Lachhmi Narain Gupta & others Vs. Jarnail Singh and others (176.8 KiB, 366 hits)

  Judgement dated 2.7.2009 (414.6 KiB, 678 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 (35 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: 3.9/5 (22 votes cast)
Scroll To Top

Close


*

*

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 4.0/5 (35 votes cast)