Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that the “claim of the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.”
Madras HC dismissed a plea filed by IRS Officer who supported Sri Lankan Tamils through a hunger strike and criticised the Indian government’s policies on the Indo-Sri Lanka Peace Accord
“The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.”, observed Supreme Court
Supreme Court held that the respondent could not have been given the pensionary benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO, as before her probation period was completed, she was relieved.
The Delhi High Court held that the walking test of completing 25 kilometers would be an obligatory stipulation and needed to be fulfilled apart from meeting the special eligibility criteria in terms of physical requirement consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be prescribed by its Cadre Controlling Authority for the Indian Forest Service Examination.
The Court held that Rule 12-A of the CCS (Extraordinary Pension) Rules specifically permits a widow of an employee who remarries deceased husband's brother to get extraordinary pension.
Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi: In an original application filed by the applicant seeking to quash the answer key for Questions
In the case at hand, the vacancy advertised stood exhausted with the appointment of a candidate, and the petitioner was, hence, held not entitled to the appointment on the post so advertised.
by Ishan Chauhan† and Harshdeep Singh††
Central Administrative Tribunal: Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A), held that compassionate appointment cannot be equated with family pension. Slamming the respondents for their
As directed by the Hon’ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, the following Notification is issued: The functioning of the Principal Bench
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench of Rajiv Sharma and Harinder Singh Sidhu JJ., set aside the decision of the
Patna High Court: The Division Bench of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Anjana Mishra, JJ. rejected a petition assailing the order delivered by
Allahabad High Court: A writ petition was filed by Union of India and the Railway Administration before a Division Bench comprising of