Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

Supreme Court clarifies Double Overtime for Supervisors in Security Printing & Minting Corporation case: Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. (2023) INSC 379 (18 April 2023)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 3(q), Factories Act, 1948, Factories Act, 1948 with Section 2(l), Factories Act, 1948 with Section 59(1), Factories Act, 1948 with Section 64(1), Judges, Pankaj Mithal, Service Matters, V. Ramasubramanian

Supreme Court clarifies Double Overtime for Supervisors in Security Printing & Minting Corporation case Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2023 Citation: (2023) INSC 379 Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. Can supervisors in government-owned printing and minting corporations claim double overtime pay? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this complex issue, examining […]

Supreme Court clarifies Double Overtime for Supervisors in Security Printing & Minting Corporation case: Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Vijay D. Kasbe & Ors. (2023) INSC 379 (18 April 2023) Read Post »

Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts: Supreme Court refers the matter to a Larger Bench in Service Law Dispute (2023)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 25, B.V. Nagarathna, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 226(2), Judges, M.R. Shah

Supreme Court refers the issue of High Court’s territorial jurisdiction to a Larger Bench in Union of India vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. (2023) LEGAL ISSUE: The core legal issue revolves around the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts to hear writ petitions challenging orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), particularly when the CAT’s Principal

Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts: Supreme Court refers the matter to a Larger Bench in Service Law Dispute (2023) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order on Disciplinary Proceedings Time Limits: Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar (2022)

/ Administrative Law, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 14, Dinesh Maheshwari, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Judicial Review, Krishna Murari, Service Law, Time Limits, Tribunal Orders, Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order on Disciplinary Proceedings Time Limits: Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar (2022) Date of the Judgment: July 6, 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 600 Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Krishna Murari, J. Can a disciplinary proceeding be considered invalid simply because it wasn’t completed within a timeframe set by a Tribunal? The

Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Order on Disciplinary Proceedings Time Limits: Union of India vs. Sharvan Kumar (2022) Read Post »

Jurisdiction of High Court in Transfer of Cases: Supreme Court clarifies in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 1 (06 January 2022)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Administrative Law, Administrative Law with Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, C.T. Ravikumar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Fundamental Rights, Judges

Jurisdiction of High Court in Transfer of Cases: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 1 Date of the Judgment: 06 January 2022 Citation: (2022) INSC 1 Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., C.T. Ravikumar, J. Can the High Court exercise power of judicial review over an order of transfer of an Original Application by the

Jurisdiction of High Court in Transfer of Cases: Supreme Court clarifies in Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 1 (06 January 2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in transfer of cases under Administrative Tribunals Act: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 182

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 5, C.T. Ravikumar, Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Judges

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in transfer of cases under Administrative Tribunals Act: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 182 LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the jurisdictional High Court for reviewing orders of transfer of cases by the Central Administrative Tribunal. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Administrative Law. Case Name: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay. Judgment

Supreme Court clarifies jurisdiction in transfer of cases under Administrative Tribunals Act: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) INSC 182 Read Post »

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction for Challenging Tribunal Transfer Orders: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022)

/ A.M. Khanwilkar, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 5, C.T. Ravikumar, Constitutional Law, Constitutional Law with Article 226, Constitutional Law with Article 323A, Constitutional Law with Article 323B, Judges

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction for Challenging Tribunal Transfer Orders: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) LEGAL ISSUE: Determining the correct High Court jurisdiction for judicial review of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) transfer orders. CASE TYPE: Service Law, Administrative Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay Judgment Date: 06 January 2022 Date of

Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdiction for Challenging Tribunal Transfer Orders: Union of India vs. Alapan Bandyopadhyay (2022) Read Post »

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Temporary Status for Casual Laborers: BSNL vs. Deo Kumar Rai (2021)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 22(3), Casual Labourers, Hrishikesh Roy, Judges, R. Subhash Reddy, Regularization, Service Law, Temporary Status

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Temporary Status for Casual Laborers: BSNL vs. Deo Kumar Rai (2021) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a casual laborer is entitled to temporary status under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme of the Department of Telecommunications, 1989, if they have not worked for 240 days in

Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Temporary Status for Casual Laborers: BSNL vs. Deo Kumar Rai (2021) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 27, Ajay Rastogi, Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Disciplinary Proceedings, Judges, Natural Justice, Service Law, Service Law with Rule 543(10)(b)

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether a disciplinary inquiry is vitiated by non-supply of documents and delay in proceedings. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh Judgment Date: 21 November 2019 Date of the Judgment: 21

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal in Postal Misconduct Case: Union of India vs. Udai Bhan Singh (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Authority: AIIMS vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2019)

/ Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 24, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 25, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with Section 5, Central Administrative Tribunal, Indira Banerjee, Interim Orders, Judges, R. Banumathi, Service Law

Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Authority: AIIMS vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2019) LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), sitting singly, can stay proceedings before a Division Bench of the same Tribunal. CASE TYPE: Service Law Case Name: All India Institute of Medical Sciences vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 1

Supreme Court Upholds Division Bench Authority: AIIMS vs. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2019) Read Post »

Supreme Court clarifies Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction in Secondment Cases: Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha vs. Union of India (2018)

/ A.K. Sikri, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 with Section 3(o), Army Act, 1950, Army Act, 1950 with Section 27, Army Act, 1950 with Section 33, Ashok Bhushan, Judges, Service Matters

Supreme Court clarifies Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction in Secondment Cases (2018) LEGAL ISSUE: Scope of “service matters” under the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, specifically regarding permanent secondment in organizations like the Directorate General of Quality Assurance (DGQA). CASE TYPE: Service Law, Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction Case Name: Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha vs. Union of

Supreme Court clarifies Armed Forces Tribunal Jurisdiction in Secondment Cases: Lt. Col. Vijaynath Jha vs. Union of India (2018) Read Post »

Supreme Court settles Railway Employee Seniority Dispute in Non-Technical Clerical Category Selection (21st October 2008)

/ Administrative Law, Administrative Law with Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Rule 17, Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, Employee Seniority, J.M. Panchal, Judges, K.G. Balakrishnan, Limitation Act, 1963, Limitation Act, 1963 with Section 5, P. Sathasivam, Railway Law, Railway Law with Rule 303, Railway Recruitment Board (RRB)

Date of the Judgment: 21st October 2008 Judges: K.G. Balakrishnan, P. Sathasivam, J.M. Panchal Can seniority be claimed retroactively by railway employees appointed years after the initial selection process due to alleged malpractices? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a set of appeals concerning the selection of Non-Technical Popular Clerical Category employees in the

Supreme Court settles Railway Employee Seniority Dispute in Non-Technical Clerical Category Selection (21st October 2008) Read Post »

Scroll to Top