Dismissed

The Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Ors. v. Vidyasagar Pandurang Gawali

Bombay HC25 Oct 2024WP/6507/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging a CAT order, holding that the issue was covered by an Apex Court judgment which superseded subsequent administrative instructions. The Tribunal's approach was upheld as consistent with the doctrine of precedent.

What the court decided

AI extract

The Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Ministry of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

926-wp 6507-24.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:12206-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6507 OF 2024

¶5

The Union of India and ors. -Vs-Vidyasagar Pandurang Gawali

¶6

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders.

¶7

¶8

Ms.Meghna Munshi, counsel for the petitioner/s. Respondent in person.

¶9

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 25^th OCTOBER, 2024.

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised

¶12

twofold contentions: A- The reasonable opportunity of hearing was denied by the Central Administrative Tribunal

¶13

and the order impugned goes contrary to mandate provided in the administrative instructions dated 18.01.2024.

¶14

The fact remains that the issue which was sought to be canvassed by the respondent before the Central Administrative Tribunal is covered by the Apex Court judgment in the matter of The Director (Admn.And HR) KPTCL and ors ..V.. C.P. Mundinamani and ors.

¶15

The fact remains that the Central Administrative

¶16

Tribunal has not granted the accommodation to the

¶17

Kavita

¶18

926-wp 6507-24.odt

¶19

counsel, who was appearing for the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal as the issue sought to be canvassed by the respondent employee was found to be squarely covered by the aforesaid Apex Court judgment.

¶20

We do not see, any fault in the approach of the Central

¶21

Administrative Tribunal on that count as the issue is covered by the Apex Court judgment referred above.

¶22

As far as the second contention being ignorance of the administrative instructions dated 18.01.2024 are concerned, the fact remains that the said instructions are contrary to the mandate provided by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment of the The Director (Admin. And HR) Supra.

¶23

The administrative instructions will not make the judgment of the Apex Court prospective as the same shall be covered by the doctrine of precedent.

¶24

That being so, there is no substance in the writ petition, hence the same stands dismissed.

¶25

JUDGE

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Kavita Date: 25/10/2024 20:08:22

The Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Ors. v. Vidyasagar Pandurang Gawali

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The Union of India, Thr. the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi and Ors. v. Vidyasagar Pandurang Gawali

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dilip S/O. Narayanrao Talhande and Another Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Others

Ku. Swati Rajesh Khadse vs the Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Rahul Tulsiram Dongre vs the Registrar (Administration), High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur and Anr.

Sahebrao Pundlik Misal Vs the Collector, Buldhana and Others

Firoze Wazir Sheikh Vs the Additional Collector, Chandrapur and Others

Rahul S/O Siddharth Dangre and Another Vs the Collector, Wardha and Others