This order disposes of a petition assailing a stay on the operation of a Memorandum that allowed an employee to continue duties past retirement age. The court directed the Central Administrative Tribunal to take up arguments on a fixed date without further adjournments.
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.
$~14
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Ms. Radha Lakshmi R. and Mr. Rajat Krishna, Advocates.
versus
JAGDISH PRASAD AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Shanker Raju and Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocates for R1. Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA
Page 1 of 3
W.P.(C)8232/2017
Division Bench vide order dated 31.5.2017, directing that the pending application for stay filed by UOI shall be taken up by the Tribunal on the date already fixed i.e., 20.07.2017. When the parties appeared before the Tribunal on 20.7.2017, the Tribunal observed that keeping in view the nature of the controversy involved, it would rather to dispose of the main petition.
Page 2 of 3
W.P.(C)8232/2017
possible.
HIMA KOHLI, J
A.K. CHAWLA, J
SEPTEMBER 15, 2017 ap/rkb
Page 3 of 3
W.P.(C)8232/2017
UNION OF INDIA
JAGDISH PRASAD
HIMA KOHLI
A.K. CHAWLA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
