This was a civil writ petition impugning a Central Administrative Tribunal order denying direct absorption in Group C posts. The petitioners relied on Bhadei Rai. The court dismissed the petition as no further survival exists post-confirmation by the Supreme Court.
Petition dismissed; Rule discharged; No order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
pdp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 2003
Union of India, through G.M., Mumbai Division ..Petitioner
Vs.
N.G. Thomas and ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Suresh Kumar for petitioner
CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, JJ.
August 05, 2009.
P.C.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution impugns order dated 3/5/2002 passed by the Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai in O.A. No. 730 of 2001. The prayer of the respondents, who were the applicants before the Tribunal for absorption in Group “C” post directly was turned down and the CAT held that they shall be entitled to protection of their pay in the post in which they were working subject to the condition that they would be regularized in Group “D” first.
Mr. Suresh Kumar has placed before us a copy of the decision in the case of Bhadei Rai vs. Union of India and ors. [(2005) 11 SCC 298] and the view taken by the
2
CAT in the impugned order has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the said case.
Hence, nothing further survives in this petition and the same is hereby
dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
(SMT. ROSHAN DALVI,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the rejection of respondents' prayer for absorption in Group C post which was confirmed by the Supreme Court requires reversal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bhadei Rai vs. Union of India and ors.Affirmed¶13
**[(2005) 11 SCC 298]** · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
N.G. Thomas
B.H. MARLAPALLE
ROSHAN DALVI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
