Partly allowed

A.Mohammed v. the Administrator, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Kerala HC4 Mar 2021OP (CAT)/175/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court stayed the Central Administrative Tribunal's order denying promotion to Social Forestry Fieldmen. Finding the Tribunal failed to hear one set of parties and ignored rival contentions on service regularisation, the Court remitted the matter afresh while maintaining status quo.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of CT set aside; matter remitted to CT for fresh consideration; status quo maintained until further orders.

A.Mohammed Vs the Administrator, Administration of the… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶7

OP (CAT).NO.175 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 690/2019 DATED 23-09-2020 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶9

PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS 4 TO 11 IN O.A.:

¶10

1 A.MOHAMMED, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. ALIF M.P., SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS,

¶11

ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682551.

¶12

2 M.P.KASSALI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.KHALID V.P., SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, AGATHI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682553.

¶13

3 K.V.SHARAF, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.AHAMEDKOYA, SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, KILTAN ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682558.

¶14

4 M.V.ABDUL GAFOOR, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. P.SIRAJUDDIN, SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682555.

¶15

5 B.MOHAMED KOYA, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.M.NALLAKOYA, SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS,

¶16

AMINI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682552.

¶17

6 SMT.F.G.FATHIMA, AGED 55 YEARS, D/O.DONATHKRU, SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, MINICOY ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682559.

¶18

7 SMT.N. HALIMABI, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. B.M.ABOOBAKER, SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND FORESTS, CHETLATH ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682554.

¶19

8 S.KOYAKIDAVE, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O. KOYAMMA T.I., SOCIAL FORESTRY FIELD MAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT & FORESTS, KADMAT ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682556.

¶20

BY ADVS.SRI.K.B.GANGESH, SMT.SMITHA CHATHANARAMBATH,SRI.AJMAL AHMED R.

¶21

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 AND PETITIONERS IN O.A.:

¶22

1 THE ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP,KAVARATTI-682555.

¶23

2 SECRETARY (AGRICULTURE), DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.

¶24

3 THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, DIRECTORATE OF AGRICULTURE, UNION TERRITORY OF LAKSHADWEEP, KAVARATTI-682555.

¶25

4 HINDUMBI, W/O.CHERIAKOYA K.P., AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, KAVARATTI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682555.

¶26

5 P.THARIQUE, S/O.THANGAL KOYA, AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, KALPENI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682557.

¶27

6 M.V.ZAINUL ABID, S/O. LATE KOYA C.N., AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, MINICOY ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682559.

¶28

7 N.SHAHUDDEN, S/O.SYED ISMAIL, AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, KADMAT ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682556.

¶29

8 K.P.MOHAMMED IQBAL, S/O. LATE HAMZA KOYA, AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, KALPENI ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682557.

¶30

9 T.P.RAHMATHULLA, S/O.POOKOYA, AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682551.

¶31

10 M.P.SUBAIDA, D/O.ATTAL N., AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, KADMAT ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682556.

¶32

11 MOHAMMED KHAJA MOINUDDEN, S/O.KUNHIKOYA THANGAL, AGRICULTURAL FIELD MAN, ANDROTH ISLAND, U.T. OF LAKSHADWEEP-682551.

¶33

SRI.S.MANU, SENIOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R11 ADV. SRI.JEN JAISON

¶34

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

ALEXANDER THOMAS & K.BABU, JJ.

¶36

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶37

(arising out of the impugned final order dated 23.9.2020 in O.A. No. 181/00690/2019 on the file of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench)

¶38

Dated this the 4^th day of March, 2021

¶39

J U D G M E N T

¶40

The prayers in the afore captioned Original Petition (CAT)

¶41

filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as

¶42

follows: {See page 9 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)}

¶43

“

¶44

i. An order setting aside Ext.P3 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench on 23.09.2020 in O.A.No.690/2019;

¶45

ii. An order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the petitioners as Agricultural Supervisors on the basis of their seniority in Annexure R1(a) to R1(c) common seniority list;

¶46

iii. Any other appropriate order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and allow this petition with all costs.”

¶47

Heard Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the O.P. (contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.A. before the Tribunal), Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep appearing for official respondents 1 to 3 herein (respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) and Sri.Shaji Thomas, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.P. (applicants in the O.A. before the Tribunal).

¶48

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶49

..4..

¶50

The prayers in Ext.P-1 Original Application O.A. No. 181/00690/2019 filed by respondents 4 to 11 herein, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, are as follows: {See pages 25 & 26 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)}

¶51

“ i. to declare that the Agricultural Field Man under the Department of Agriculture and having 8 years regular service alone are qualified and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Agricultural Supervisor in the Department of Agriculture as per Ann.A4 Recruitment Rules and that persons who were appointed as Social Forestry Field Man and employed in the Department of Environment & Forest are not qualified and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Agricultural Supervisor in the Department of Agriculture;

¶52

ii. a direction to respondents 1 to 3 to consider the applicants for promotion to the vacant post of Agricultural Supervisor in the Department of Agricultural as per their seniority in the seniority list;

¶53

iii. a direction to respondents 1 to 3 not to consider or promote respondents 4 to 11 to the vacant post of Agricultural Supervisor in the Department of Agriculture;

¶54

iv. to issue such other appropriate orders or directions in this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the case; and/or

¶55

v. to grant the costs of this Original Application.”

¶56

The Tribunal after hearing the original applicants as well as the official respondents 1 to 3 has rendered the impugned Ext.P-3 final order dated 23.9.2020 whereby it has been declared that the Social Forestry Field personnel like the contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.A./ petitioners herein are not eligible for promotion to the post of Agriculture Supervisor as per the Recruitment Rules and that the contesting respondents 4 to 11 in

¶57

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶58

..5..

¶59

the O.A./petitioners herein are not entitled to get promotion to the post of Agriculture Supervisors, as claimed by them.

¶60

It is common ground that the petitioners herein (contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) had not entered appearance before the Tribunal and that the impugned Ext.P-3 final order has been rendered by the Tribunal without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to them.

¶61

It is pointed by Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein (contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) that though the said parties were served with notices in the O.A. issued by the Tribunal, they did not have sufficient time to contact each other and then to engage a lawyer of their choice, more so particularly due to COVID-19 pandemic issues and further, the fact that the petitioners herein belonged to various islands in Lakshadweep and not in the main land, had caused serious problems to them to have a collective deliberation so as to engage a lawyer of their choice to defend the case before the Tribunal.

¶62

The main ground on which the Tribunal has allowed the O.A. is on the premise that the petitioners herein (contesting

¶63

..6..

¶64

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶65

respondents 4 to 11 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) who were earlier working in the Department of Agriculture, were later transferred to the separately created Department of Environment & Forest. Whereas, the original applicants before the Tribunal/ respondents 4 to 11 herein continued their service all throughout in the Department of Agriculture, and that therefore promotion to the post of Agriculture Supervisor as covered by Schedule II of Anx.A4 Rules could be claimed only by personnel like the original applicants who are working in the Department of Agriculture, etc.

¶66

Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners herein has raised various contentions in the matter on merits. The contentions broadly raised by the petitioners herein are as follows:

¶67

(a)The contention in OA that the petitioners herein were appointed as Social Forestry Fieldmen and as such they are not eligible for promotion to the post of Agricultural Supervisors as per Annexure A4 Recruitment Rules in Ext P1 is unsustainable in law in the light of Ext.P3 order issued by the Department which would go to show that the petitioners were regularised in service as Agricultural Fieldmen and their probation as such was declared as early as in 2001.

¶68

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶69

..7..

¶70

(b)The fact that the petitioners were transferred to the Department of Environment and Forests would also not disentitle them to claim promotion as they were transferred to the said Department with a specific rider that they would be continued to be included in the common seniority lists of Agricultural Fieldmen maintained in Agriculture Department and that they would be considered for future promotions in the said department. This evidenced by Annexure A3 in Ext.P1.

¶71

(c) Common seniority list of Agricultural Fieldmen was published a searly as in a2004 by placing the petitioners are seniors above respondents 4 to 11. The said list has become final. Annexure A3 order directing continuance of the aforesaid list and for cosideration of petitioners in future promotion even after their transfer to another Department was issued in 2015. The said order has also become final. Respondents 4 to 11 herein have acquiesced with these orders. The petitioners are entitled to justify their claim for promotion on the principle of 'Sit Back Theory'.

¶72

(d)Even in the present OA the common seniority list and Annexure A3 order remain unchallenged. So long as the same are in force, the petitioners are entitled for promotion.

¶73

Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central Government

¶74

Standing Counsel for the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep appearing for official respondents 1 to 3 herein

¶75

..8..

¶76

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶77

(respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) would point out that the transfer of personnel like the petitioners herein/contesting respondents before the Tribunal from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Environment & Forest, was with the condition that they will continue to remain in the common seniority list of all personnel in the Department of Agriculture and specific order in that regard as per Anx.A-3 dated 28.7.2015 has been issued by the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep (Directorate of Agriculture).

¶78

Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep appearing for official respondents 1 to 3 herein (respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) would invite our attention to the relevant contents on internal pages 1 & 2 of Anx.A-3 which reads as follows: {See pages 31 & 32 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)} .

¶79

“..........Department of Agriculture shall maintain a common seniority list including the names of Field man and MSE(Agri) working under the Department of Environment & Forest. So that the incumbents working under Environment & Forest Department, can also be considered for further promotion under Agriculture Department, if they are qualified as per the RR.”

¶80

..9..

¶81

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶82

Further it is also pointed out on behalf of official respondents 1 to 3 herein that, names of 8 contesting respondents in the O.A./original petitioners herein are explicitly incorporated in the tabular column given on internal page 1 of Anx.A-3. It is also pointed out that Anx.A-3 order has been passed by the Secretary (Agriculture), who is the competent authority of the Directorate of Agriculture of Union Territory of Lakshadweep Administration and the said order was passed as otherwise there will be no other promotion or career advancement to the personnel like the original petitioners who are transferred from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Environment & Forest.

¶83

It appears that the case of the original petitioners herein and the official respondents 1 to 3 is to the effect that personnel like the original petitioners were recruited to the Department of Agriculture and at that point of time, the Social Forestry Unit was under the Department of Agriculture and personnel like the original petitioners were engaged to do work both in the Social Forestry Unit as well as in the Department of Agriculture, etc.

¶84

In that regard, Sri.K.B.Gangesh, learned counsel

¶85

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶86

..10..

¶87

appearing for the original petitioners would point out that the original petitioners were regularized in service in the Department of Agriculture in the post of Agricultural Fieldman as per Ext. P-4 proceedings dated 9.8.2001. That, it was later when the work under the Social Forestry Unit was transferred to the separately created Department of Environment & Forest that personnel like the original petitioners were also transferred to the said new department, but with the condition in terms of Ext.P-1.

¶88

Further, it is pointed out by the original petitioners and official respondents 1 to 3 that the names of personnel like the original petitioners as well as personnel like the original applicants were included in the common seniority list even after the transfer of original petitioners to the newly created Department of Environment & Forest, etc.

¶89

Per contra, Sri.Shaji Thomas, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.P. /original applicants would point out that the original petitioners were initially appointed as Social Forestry Fieldman as per Anx.A-1 proceedings dated 24.3.1993 and that much later they were transferred to the newly created Department of Environment &

¶90

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶91

..11..

¶92

Forest, and therefore it is only to be that if at all they had lien originally with the Department of Agriculture, they had lost their lien there and the lien belongs to the newly created Department of Environment & Forest to which they were transferred, and that therefore personnel like the original petitioners cannot be said to be holding the post of Agricultural Fieldman as understood in Schedule III of Anx.A-4 Rules as well as in Column No.12 of the Schedule II of Anx.A-4 Rules. In that regard it is pointed out that, unless an incumbent is an Agricultural Fieldman/Lab Technician with 8 years regular service in the grade in the Agriculture Department under the Lakshadweep Administration as on the date of occurrence of vacancy, he/she is not eligible or entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Agricultural Supervisor/Junior Technical Assistant, covered by Column No.12 Schedule II of Anx.A-4 Rules. {See pages 36 & 37 of the paper book of this OP(CAT)} .

¶93

Various other contentions have also been raised by the rival parties. After hearing both sides and after anxious consideration of rival pleas we are reminded that the constitutionally assigned role to this Court is by way of judicial

¶94

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶95

..12..

¶96

review and superintendence over the considered verdicts of the Tribunal, and that going by the legal position well settled by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the celebrated case in L.Chandra Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC 261], the role of the court of first instance in discharging duties and functions in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India will be vested with the Tribunal created with the enabling law framed by the Parliament in accordance with Article 323A of the Constitution of India, and that the role of judicial review and superintendence of the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India comes after the rendering of a considered verdict/order by the Tribunal. In other words, the primary role of the court of first instance in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India will continue to be vested with the Tribunal. In this case, the abovesaid rival contentions, more particularly, the contentions raised by the original petitioners and the contra contentions thereto raised by the original applicants have not been addressed or considered by the Tribunal. In that regard it is also to be borne in mind that the contesting respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal/original petitioners herein could not be

¶97

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶98

..13..

¶99

represented by a lawyer of their choice and hence they could not defend their case before the Tribunal, and the verdict at Ext.P-3 has been rendered without hearing the contesting respondents in the O.A. before the Tribunal. True that, said parties were served notices in the said O.A. by the Tribunal. The matter has been finally disposed of as per Ext.P-3, as can be seen from internal pages 3 & 1 respectively of Ext.P-3, the matter was finally heard by the Tribunal on 27.8.2020 and the final order was rendered on 23.9.2020. The original petitioners would point out that they were residing in various islands in Lakshadweep and not in the main land, and therefore despite service of notice, they could not contact each other so as to take effective steps for engaging a lawyer of their choice to defend the case before the Tribunal, and more particularly this is all the more inhibited that, since that time, it was the peak of COVID-19 pandemic issues both in Lakshadweep Islands as well as in the State. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that the original petitioners are low paid labourers.

¶100

Hence, after hearing both sides we are of the firm view that the original petitioners have made out strong extenuating

¶101

circumstances as to the reasons why they could not engage a

¶102

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶103

..14..

¶104

lawyer of their choice before the Tribunal before the rendering of final hearing and final decision as per Ext.P-3. Since the Tribunal has not addressed the abovesaid rival pleas, it may not be right and proper for us in the facts and circumstances of the case to straightaway consider and adjudicate those rival issues. Propriety and fairness demand that those issues are properly addressed and considered by the Tribunal in exercise of its powers as the court of first instance, and also after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned.

¶105

In the light of these aspects, we are of the firm view that instead of deciding and adjudicating the matter on merits, the best course of action available in this case as warranted by the interest of justice would be that the matter would require serious re-consideration at the hands of the Tribunal, for which a remit is warranted. For effectuating such a remit, the impugned Ext.P-3 final order dated 23.9.2020 rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. No. 181/00690/2019 will stand set aside. Consequently it is ordered that O.A. No. 181/00690/2019 will stand restored to the file of the CAT, Ernakulam Bench, for consideration and decision afresh.

¶106

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶107

..15..

¶108

The petitioners in the O.P. (contesting respondents 4 to 11 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) will immediately file a reply statement in the matter without even waiting for the formal issuance of a certified copy of this judgment. The official respondents 1 to 3 herein (respondents 1 to 3 in the O.A. before the Tribunal) may also file additional pleadings, if so required. Sri.Shaji Thomas, learned counsel for the original applicants would point out that immediately after the receipt of pleadings to be filed by the petitioners in the O.P. and official respondents 1 to 3 herein, his parties would file necessary rejoinder or additional pleadings without any further delay.

¶109

Sri.S.Manu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep appearing for official respondents 1 to 3 herein would point out that Department is faced with shortage of hands in the abovesaid post of Agriculture Supervisor and that they may be permitted to make provisional or adhoc appointments only to meet the urgent exigencies of the work, as otherwise the work in the department will be detrimentally and seriously affected.

¶110

Sri.Shaji Thomas, learned counsel appearing for the

¶111

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶112

..16..

¶113

original applicants would vehemently oppose the said plea and would point out that no such order or permission may be granted by this Court, more particularly as this Court is remitting the matter to the Tribunal.

¶114

After hearing both sides we are of the view that, it is for the Tribunal to consider and pass appropriate interim orders in the matter after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. We are told that, after the initial stage after the O.A. was admitted, the Tribunal had recorded the undertaking made on behalf of the respondent Lakshadweep Administration, and later they wanted to make provisional appointments, at which point of time the impugned final order was rendered.

¶115

Taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case it is ordered that status quo be maintained until the Tribunal passes appropriate interim order in the matter after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned. We make it clear that the abovesaid directions have been made by us only to preserve the subject matter of lis and shall not be construed even remotely as an expression or opinion on our part regarding the merits of the controversy which would fall exclusively within the

¶116

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶117

..17..

¶118

domain and province of the Tribunal. Further, we would call upon all the parties concerned to fully co-operate with the Tribunal, so as to facilitate the early final disposal of the main matter in O.A. No. 181/00690/2019 without much delay. We would request the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, to take all reasonable endeavours possible in these circumstances to ensure the facilitation of early final disposal of the main matter in O.A. No. 181/00690/2019 without much delay, preferably within 4 to 5 months or within any time limit that is found appropriate and fair by the Tribunal, and taking note of the interest of administration of justice.

¶119

With these observations and directions, the above Original Petition (CAT) will stand finally disposed of.

¶120

Sd/-

¶121

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

Sd/-

K.BABU, JUDGE

MMG

O.P.(CAT) No. 175 of 2020

¶126

..18..

¶127

APPENDIX

¶128

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶129

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF O.A.NO.690/2019 FILED BY RESPONDENTS 4 TO 11 BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM WITH ANNEXURES.

¶130

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.2/4/93(ANNEXURE A1) AGRI(4) DATED 24.3.1993 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER (ANNEXURE A2) F.NO.8/3/2014-E&F(2) DATED 2.12.2014 ISSUED BY THE CONSERVATOR OF FOREST. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER F.NO.1/1/2015(ANNEXURE A3) AGRI/278 DATED 28.7.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 NOTIFICATION NO.F.NO.3/1/2010-AGRI DATED (ANNEXURE A4) 13.5.2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P1 TRUE PHOTOCOPIES OF APPOINTMENT ORDERS (ANNEXURE A5 F.NO.2/5/92-AGRI. DATED 30.3.1993 AND SERIES) 4.1.1994 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 HEREIN BEFORE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM WITH ANNEXURES. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OM F.NO.1/12/2017(ANNEXURE R1(A)) AGRI./645 DATED 7.12.2017. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE OM F.NO.1/12/2017-AGRI-929 (ANNEXURE R1(B)) DATED 19.1.2019. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.10.2004. (ANNEXURE R1(C)) EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM IN O.A.NO.690/2019 DATED 23.9.2020. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 9.8.2001 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

A.Mohammed v. the Administrator, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Mohammed v. the Administrator, Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Kerala Vs S.Janardanan

The District Officer Vs Deepthi

Keya Foods International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Kerala State Bamboo Corporation, Vs P.M.Kunjumuhammed

V.K.Somarajan Pillai Vs Union of India

State of Kerala Vs Prabodu Kumar .K.P