Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (9) TMI 628 - SUPREME COURT

2015 (9) TMI 628 - SUPREME COURT - 2015 (328) E.L.T. 3 (SC) - Denial of actual benefit of pay in the post of Inspector of Central Excise - Held that:- The very fact that the appellant was subsequently promoted, though notionally, indicates that the respondent-Union of India accepts the wrongful denial of such promotion to the appellant. The promotion made on the recommendation of the DPC would go to show that the appellant was fit and eligible for promotion on the dates when his juniors were pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in refusing the benefit of regular pay to the appellant with effect from the dates of his notional promotion to the post of Inspector and Superintendent respectively - Decided in favour of assessee. - CIVIL APPEAL NO.6926 OF 2015 [ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO.8425/2014] - Dated:- 7-9-2015 - Mr. Ranjan Gogoi and Mr. N.V. Ramana, JJ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Adv., Mrs. Malavika J., Adv., Mr. Sureshan P., Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Narasimha, ASG, Ms. Vi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

pay was refused to him by rejection of a representation filed. The appellant therefore moved the Central Administrative Tribunal which granted him the relief. Aggrieved, the Union of India filed a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. The High Court having answered the issue in favour of the Union of India, the appellant has filed this appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. 3. It will be unnecessary to take note of the detailed facts save and except that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the dates when his juniors were promoted. The only ground that had prevailed upon the Union of India to refuse the appellant the benefit of actual pay following such notional promotion is that the appellant had not worked in the higher post of Inspector and Superintendent. While the aforesaid fact is correct what cannot be ignored is that the said consequence emanates from the initial decision of the Union not to promote the appellant to the higher post which was subsequently corrected by the U .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version