The High Court of Bombay dismissed the writ petition. The Court held that the Central Administrative Tribunal's finding regarding the lack of inordinate delay and the acceptance of voluntary retirement after a complaint was satisfactorily addressed did not warrant interference.
None
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.
WP 189 - 14
VPH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No. 189 OF 2014
Mr. Kamad Prakash Nigam ….Petitioner Vs. Union of India and Ors. ….Respondents
Ms. Priyanka Mehendiratta for Petitioner
Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar i/b. N.R. Prajapati for Respondent Nos.1 and 2- Union of India
*** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 22, 2016 PC.
Central Administrative Tribunal (for short “CAT”), rejecting the application filed by the Petitioner seeking interest @ 18% per annum
for the delay caused in accepting his application for voluntary retirement.
the Respondents. The Tribunal has also observed that the
1 / 2
WP 189 - 14
Respondents have not collected sufficient material regarding the complaint filed by the Petitioner herein and had passed an order accepting the voluntary retirement after it was satisfied that the complaint filed against the Petitioner was not acceptable. We do not see any reason to interfere with the will considered finding, recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/Sd/[M. S. SONAK, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.]
Vinayak Halemath
2 / 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's finding that the delay was not inordinate or deliberate regarding the petitioner's voluntary retirement.
Kamad Prakash Nigam
Union of India
V. M. Kanade
M. S. Sonak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
