w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



Anita v/s Union Territory, Chandigarh through its Administrator, U.T. Civil Secretariat & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- UT LTD [Active] CIN = L29120WB1965PLC026533

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY LTD. [Active] CIN = U36900WB1927PLC005621

Company & Directors' Information:- UNION COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Dissolved] CIN = U99999KA1942PTC000292

    O.A. No. 060/00249 of 2016

    Decided On, 10 July 2018

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. P. GOPINATH
    By, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: R.K. Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Sanjay Guevera, Arvind Moudgil, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J).

1. By means of present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant seeks the following relief(s):-

'i) Quash decision of the respondents as conveyed vide memo NO.1973-DSE-S2-11(33) 2012 dated 29.2.2016, copy attached as Annexure A-1, whereby claim of the applicant for promotion against 1% quota has been declined on the ground that number of technical issues (were involved ( such as distribution of posts amongst SLA/Ministerial staff, intra-seniority etc.) and that in order to set out a specific promotion criteria against SLA/Ministerial staff the department had constituted a Committee of officers vide order NO.SPI-UT-S2-1Q1 (233) 2012 dated 1.1.206, which in turn, has also submitted its report on 4.2.2016 according to which promotion quota against 1% of sanctioned for SLA/ministerial staff has been worked out which comes to 4.91 ( say 5 posts ) and the proposal for filling up these posts from amongst SLA/Ministerial staff in the ratio of 1:3 by giving due weightage to seniority to the concefrned cadre, has now been initiated by the department, as claim of the applicant is required to be considered w.e.f. 24.11.2014 in view of the policy framed and circulated by the department vide letter No.DPI-UTS2-11()39)-92 dated 18.6.209 issued by the DPI (s) Chandigarh Administration on the basis of notification NO.3888-DPI-UT-S1-11(12) 95 dated 10.3.2009 issued by the Chandigarh Administration Education department and quashing thereof;

ii) Directions may be issued to the respondents to consider and promote the applicant to the post of Science Medical Mistress w.e.f. 24.11.2014 in view of the policy framed and circulated by the department vide letter NO.DPI-UT-S2-11()39)-92 dated 18.6.2009 issued by the DPI(S) Chandigarh Administration n the basis of notification NO.3888-DPI-UT-S1-11(12) 95 dated 10.3.2009 issued by the Chandigarh Administration Education Department'.

2. Facts of the case are that the applicant who possesses B.Sc, B.Ed.(with relevant subject combination) M.Sc. & M.Phil(Computer Science) was appointed as clerk in the respondent department vide order dated 13.6.2005. Chandigarh Administration vide its notification dated 10.3.2009 made amendment in Chandigarh Education Service (School Cadre) (Group C ) Recruitment Rules, 1991 and made provision for promotion for Masters/Mistress amongst JBT Teachers, Nursery teacher, C&V Teachers ( drawing teacher), PTI and Work Experience Instructors etc. and Sr. Lab. Attendants/Ministerial staff in the ratio of 70:15:14:1 respectively. Applicant has stated that in pursuance of notification dated 10.3.2009, respondents considered the case for promotion as Language Master Hindi, Punjab (& Sanskrit from amongst NTT/C&V (Drawing, PTI & Work experience in cutting & Tailoring etc.) from amongst Las and other ministerial staff. Respondent no.3 vide letter dated 18.6.2009 decided to fill one post of Medical Master and two posts of Social Study by way of promotion amongst from SLAs/ministerial staff. Respondents asked for cases of eligible persons from the feeder cadre of C&V, ministerial staff and SEA to Master/Mistresses. Applicant being the only eligible candidate against 1% quota out of ministerial category/SLA, applied for the post of Science Medical Mistress. A joint/combined list of ministerial staff was uploaded on the website , wherein the present applicant was declared as eligible for promotion to the post of Science Medical Mistress. Thereafter, the applicant made representation dated 23.9.2014 for consider and promote her to the post of Science Mistress in view of departmental circular dated 18.6.2009. Respondents considered the cases of eligible JBT, C&V (Drawing, PTI & Work Experience Instructors ) on 24.11.2014, but the case of the ministerial staff including the case of the present applicant was not considered. Applicant served a legal notice dated 3.11.2015 to which the respondents sent reply wherein the respondents have stated that promotion of SLA/ministerial staff against 1% quota could not be done in the promotion process initiated during the year 2014-15 as number of technical issues were involved. In the reply, the respondents have further stated that a committee of officers was constituted for the purpose, wherein the Committee recommended that quota against 1% of sanctioned for MLA/ministerial staff has been worked out which comes to 4.91 (say 5 posts) and the proposal for filling up these posts from amongst SLA/ministerial staff in the ratio of 1: 3 by giving due weightage to seniority to the concerned cadre has now been initiated by the department.

3. Applicant has alleged that the respondents wanted to favour someone by not considering the claim of the applicant for promotion. Applicant has stated that it is settled principle of law that once a right has accrued to the employee, the respondent department cannot snatch the same in any manner. Hence the present OA.

4. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing written statement, wherein they have stated that the Chandigarh Administration have notified its own Recruitment Rules known as Chandigarh Education Service ( School cadre) ( Group C ) Recruitment Rules, 1991, whereby recruitment of masters/mistresses were made as 60% by direct recruitment, 20% by promotion from amongst PST and 20% by deputation. Thereafter, Rules, 1991 were amended in the year 1998 and again Rules were further amended in the year 2009. Till 2009, there was no provision for promotion of SLA/ministerial staff as master/mistress as ministerial staff have separate avenues of promotion to the post of Sr. Assistant/Superintendent/Administrative Officer/Registrar. It was for the first time in March, 2009, ministerial staff has also been made eligible for promotion in the cadre of masters/mistresses also besides their separate line of promotion by reducing 1% quota of C&V teachers. The ratio out of 20% quota meant for promotion of four feeding cadres i.e. JBT, Nursery and C&V is only 1% from 2009 and which is further divided amongst SLAs and ministerial cadre on the (basis of their actual strength. The posts of masters/mistresses are to be filled by non-selection method i.e. strictly in order of their seniority in their own cadre and subject to availability of vacancies. They have thus prayed for dismissal of the OA.

5. As per direction dated 21.12.2016 of this Court, respondent no.2 has filed affidavit , wherein it was specifically mentioned that there is no letter dated 9.6.2009, rather, the same is the copy of the note submitted by dealing assistant. On the basis of note, Superintendent of office of respondent no.3 proposed that DEO Chandigarh may be asked to send the promotion cases complete in all respects. In the said affidavit, respondent no.2 has also stated that since the promotion was based from multiple cadres i.e. JBT/NTT/C&V and SLA/ministerial cadre, as such, roster points were fixed according to the ratio mentioned in the Recruitment Rules for these 4 cadres ( 70:15:14:1). Promotions were made from these 4 cadres in 12 different subjects of TGT on the basis of roster point fixed for different cadres to ensure that there is no injustice to the employees of any specific cadre. Further 1% post was to be filled up from SLA/ministerial cadre and both these cadres i.e. SLA and ministerial cadre are having different seniority list. Before making promotion under 1% quota, it was decided on the basis of cadre strength of LS and ministerial staff that post among these 2 cadres are to be filled up in the ratio of 1:3. Applicant’s name is at sr.no.9 in the seniority amongst the ministerial cadre and Mr. Gurjant Singh whose name is at sr.no.7 in the ministerial cadre was promoted. No other candidate from ministerial cadre after 27.2.1996 was promoted (and on the other hand, applicant’s date of joining in the department is 13.6.2005.

6. Applicant has also filed rebuttal to the affidavit that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure A-4) had made provision to fill up the posts of TGT by way of promotions amongst JBT Teachers, Nursery Teachers, C&V Teachers (Drawing Teachers, PTI and Work Experience Instructors etc.) and SLA/Ministerial staff, in the ratio of 70:15:14:1 AS per office noting dated 9.6.2009 (A-5) then DPI had approved proposal to fill up various posts in above proportion. He has given vacancy position in a tabulated form. The applicant applied for and is only eligible candidate from amongst SLAs/Ministerial staff fulfilling the eligibly for the post of Science medical Master/Mistress. Five posts were to be filled up and four have already been promoted from amongst Ministerial Staff/SLA. On the one hand the respondents claim that post has been kept for promotion of Mr. Damodar and on the other hand, they have refused to promote him and applicant is eligible for promotion as post of Science Medical Mistress is lying vacant since 2009.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the fine minutely.

8. When the case came up for hearing on 21.12.2016, learned counsel for the applicant made a specific plea that in terms of letter dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure A-5), all other eligible persons, except the applicant, have already been promoted and only applicant (has been left out. On this, the learned counsel for respondents stated that respondents have taken a conscious decision in meeting held on 10.7.2016, to fill up 4 posts in the ratio of 1:3 from amongst SLA/Ministerial cadre. However, qua promotion in pursuance of letter dated 9.6.2009, he sought time to clarify the matter. On 28.9.2017, the learned counsel for the respondents, during course of hearing, went to the extent of challenging the validity of Annexure A-5, claiming that proposal was never approved by DPI as there is no specific sentence to indicate that it was approved. So, it was directed that DPI would come present in Court to explain the things. DPI (S) appeared on 9.10.2017 and sought time to file a comprehensive affidavit stating as to why administration has not considered the claim of the applicant as well as other eligible persons for promotion, though people from other categories have been promoted in the year 2009. An affidavit was filed by the respondents pleading that Annexure A-5, was only a noting and that no promotions were made on the basis of this document.

9. However, one thing which goes without any dispute is that the vacancies were available in 2009 and the applicant was eligible at that time and new criteria has been formed by them, qua distribution of vacancies, only in 2016. We find merit in the claim of the applicant that her claim for promotion is required to be considered w.e.f. 24.11.2014 in view of the policy framed and circulated on 18.6.2009 (Annexure A-6), which is further based on noting dated 10.3.2009, which cannot be disowned by them in view of issuance of a formal order, Annexure A-6. The applications were invited and the applicant had submitted her application in 2009 itself. The persons from other categories were admittedly promoted from (2009 itself. That being the position, there was no bar in considering the claim of the applicant from 2014 itself when she was duly eligible and had submitted her application and vacancies were admittedly available at that moment. The delay caused by the respondents and then change of criteria in 2016, cannot be used by them to their own advantage and to the prejudice of the applicant as it would amount to snatching the right of applicant for consideration for promotion to the post in question, more so, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS, 2010(3) SCALE 272. In any case, the right which had vested in the applicant prior to 2014, cannot be taken away by framing criteria subsequently. We are fortified in our view on the basis of decision in the case of B.L.GUPTA AND ANOTHER V. M.C.D. (1998 (9) SCC 223), in which the main issue was whether the vacancies, which had arisen prior to amendment of the Rules, could only be filled as per the Rules as they stood prior to amendment. Dealing with the case, Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held as under:

'When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission. In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education, it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the (High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the results for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done.'

6. Applicant has also filed rebuttal to the affidavit that Chandigarh Administration vide notification dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure A-4) had made provision to fill up the posts of TGT by way of promotions amongst JBT Teachers, Nursery Teachers, C&V Teachers (Drawing Teachers, PTI and Work Experience Instructors etc.) and SLA/Ministerial staff, in the ratio of 70:15:14:1 AS per office noting dated 9.6.2009 (A-5) then DPI had approved proposal to fill up various posts in above proportion. He has given vacancy position in a tabulated form. The applicant applied for and is only eligible candidate from amongst SLAs/Ministerial staff fulfilling the eligibly for the post of Science medical Master/Mistress. Five posts were to be filled up and four have already been promoted from amongst Ministerial Staff/SLA. On the one hand the respondents claim that post has been kept for promotion of Mr. Damodar and on the other hand, they have refused to promote him and applicant is eligible for promotion as post of Science Medical Mistress is lying vacant since 2009.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the fine minutely.

8. When the case came up for hearing on 21.12.2016, learned counsel for the applicant made a specific plea that in terms of letter dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure A-5), all other eligible persons, except the applicant, have already been promoted and only applicant has been left out. On this, the learned counsel for respondents (stated that respondents have taken a conscious decision in meeting held on 10.7.2016, to fill up 4 posts in the ratio of 1:3 from amongst SLA/Ministerial cadre. However, qua promotion in pursuance of letter dated 9.6.2009, he sought time to clarify the matter. On 28.9.2017, the learned counsel for the respondents, during course of hearing, went to the extent of challenging the validity of Annexure A-5, claiming that proposal was never approved by DPI as there is no specific sentence to indicate that it was approved. So, it was directed that DPI would come present in Court to explain the things. DPI (S) appeared on 9.10.2017 and sought time to file a comprehensive affidavit stating as to why administration has not considered the claim of the applicant as well as other eligible persons for promotion, though people from other categories have been promoted in the year 2009. An affidavit was filed by the respondents pleading that Annexure A-5, was only a noting and that no promotions were made on the basis of this document.

9. However, one thing which goes without any dispute is that the vacancies were available in 2009 and the applicant was eligible at that time and new criteria has been formed by them, qua distribution of vacancies, only in 2016. We find merit in the claim of the applicant that her claim for promotion is required to be considered w.e.f. 24.11.2014 in view of the policy framed and circulated on 18.6.2009 (Annexure A-6), which is further based on noting dated 10.3.2009, which cannot be disowned by them in view of issuance of a formal order, Annexure A-6. The applications were invited and the applicant had submitted her application in 2009 itself. The persons from other categories were admittedly promoted from (2009 itself. That being the position, there was no bar in considering the claim of the applicant from 2014 itself when she was duly eligible and had submitted her application and vacancies were admittedly available at that moment. The delay caused by the respondents and then change of criteria in 2016, cannot be used by them to their own advantage and to the prejudice of the applicant as it would amount to snatching the right of applicant for consideration for promotion to the post in question, more so, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. HEMRAJ SINGH CHAUHAN & OTHERS, 2010(3) SCALE 272. In any case, the right which had vested in the applicant prior to 2014, cannot be taken away by framing criteria subsequently. We are fortified in our view on the basis of decision in the case of B.L.GUPTA AND ANOTHER V. M.C.D. (1998) 9 SCC 223, in which the main issue was whether the vacancies, which had arisen prior to amendment of the Rules, could only be filled

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

as per the Rules as they stood prior to amendment. Dealing with the case, Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held as under: 'When the statutory rules had been framed in 1978, the vacancies had to be filled only according to the said Rules. The Rules of 1995 have been held to be prospective by the High Court and in our opinion this was the correct conclusion. This being so, the question which arises is whether the vacancies which had arisen earlier than 1995 can be filled as per the 1995 Rules. Our attention has been drawn by Mr. Mehta to a decision of this Court in the case of N.T. Devin Katti v. Karnataka Public Service Commission. In that case after referring to the earlier decisions in the cases of Y.V. Rangaiah v. J. Sreenivasa Rao, P. Ganeshwar Rao v. State of A.P. and A.A. Calton v. Director of Education, it was held by this Court that the vacancies which had occurred prior to the amendment of the Rules would be governed by the old Rules and not by the amended Rules. Though the High Court has referred to these judgments, but for the reasons which are not easily decipherable its applicability was only restricted to 79 and not 171 vacancies, which admittedly existed. This being the correct legal position, the (High Court ought to have directed the respondent to declare the results for 171 posts of Assistant Accountants and not 79 which it had done.' 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Original Application merits acceptance and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion to the post of SMM w.e.f. 24.11.2014, in terms of the policy dated 18.6.2009 (Annexure A-6) based on noting dated 10.3.2009 (Annexure A-5) and if she is found fit, promote her from that date with all the consequential benefits. The needful be done within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

27-05-2020 Dr. Ojasvini Agrawal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
25-05-2020 Union of India & Another Versus Deven Yogesh Kanani & Others Supreme Court of India
22-05-2020 All India Lawyer's Union Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Dhiraj Milind Dhurve Versus Union Public Service Commission & Another High Court of Delhi
22-05-2020 Anant Vardhan Pathak @ Anant Satish Pathak Versus Union of India [Narcotic Control Bureau High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-05-2020 Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Gurgaon National Company Law Appellate Tribunal
20-05-2020 Sachdanand Dabral & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Uttarakhand
19-05-2020 Brij Kishore Dwivedi Versus Union of India, represented by and through the Secretary to the Government of India, New Delhi in the Ministry of Home Affairs, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of Tripura
19-05-2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
18-05-2020 Dheeraj Kumar & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-05-2020 Microvision Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Bombay
13-05-2020 Ojasvini Agrawal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
12-05-2020 Kenneth Jideofor Versus Union of India, Joint Secretary to Govt. of India Ministry of Finance & Revenue & Others High Court of Karnataka
08-05-2020 Karan Seth Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 Ibrahim Elettil, President, Dubai KMCC, Elettil, Kozhikode & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
08-05-2020 AVR Enterprises Versus Union of India High Court of Delhi
08-05-2020 O.P. Gupta Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
07-05-2020 Asa Uma Farooq Versus Union of India, through its its Secrtary, Ministry of Home Afairs, Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
05-05-2020 Sujay Desai & Another Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-05-2020 S.K. Rout Versus Ministry of Health And Family Welfare, Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
05-05-2020 Rahul Kothari Vesus Union of India High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
05-05-2020 Jagdeep S. Chhokar & Another Versus Union of India Supreme Court of India
05-05-2020 Brand Equity Treaties Limited & Others Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
04-05-2020 Mian Abdul Qayoom Versus Union Territory of JK & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
04-05-2020 Kedarnath Mahapatra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
04-05-2020 Sam Uttan Versus The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Govt. of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
01-05-2020 Manish Kumar Mishra Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
01-05-2020 Satish Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
01-05-2020 Anil K. Aggarwal, Advocate & Another Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
30-04-2020 United Nurses Association, Through Its State President Shoby Joseph, Thrissur Versus Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, New Delhi & Another High Court of Kerala
30-04-2020 Dr. Somu Singh & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
30-04-2020 Align Components Pvt. Ltd., & Another Versus Union of India & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
29-04-2020 Christian Medical College Vellore Association Versus Union Of India & Others Supreme Court of India
27-04-2020 Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
25-04-2020 Vimlesh Bhatt Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
24-04-2020 All India Council of Human Rights, Liberties & Social Justice Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
24-04-2020 Gowhar Nazir Shah Geelani Versus Union Territory of JK & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
24-04-2020 Dr. Mohd Fahad Khan & Others Versus Union of India, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare & Others High Court of Karnataka
24-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus Exide Industries Limited & Another Supreme Court of India
23-04-2020 Mehrwan Farshed Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
22-04-2020 Hira Singh & Another Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 Mahadeo Construction Co. at Chhatarpur, Palamau Through its partner Anil Kumar Singh Versus The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Goods & Services Tax, Ranchi & Others High Court of Jharkhand
21-04-2020 P. Anvar Babu Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
21-04-2020 N. Sampath Ganesh & Others Versus Union of India, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Through Regional Director (Western Region) & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
18-04-2020 All India Council of Human Rights Liberties & Social Justice Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
16-04-2020 In Re: Court on Its Own Motion Versus Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir & Ladakh through Secretaries, Social Welfare Department High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
16-04-2020 The High Court of Meghalaya Bar Association & Another Versus The Union of India & Others High Court of Meghalaya
15-04-2020 Jyotsna Shingwani Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
15-04-2020 Union of India, through General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) & Another Versus Ganeshibai @ Sunderibai In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
15-04-2020 United Nurses Association Through Its President Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
15-04-2020 Harnam Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-04-2020 Amit Dwivedi Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
13-04-2020 Shashank Deo Sudhi Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
09-04-2020 S. Jimraj Milton Versus Union of India Represented by It's Cabinet Secretary Rashtrapati Bhavan, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 M. Munusamy Versus The Secretary to its Represents The Union Government of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-04-2020 T. Ganesh Kumar Versus Union of India Represented by Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 N. Rajagopal Versus The Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
08-04-2020 Shashank Deo Sudhi Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
07-04-2020 Kudrat Sandhu Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
04-04-2020 ABC Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Ministry of Women & Child Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
03-04-2020 Gaurav Kumar Bansal Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Shaikh Mujtaba Farooq & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 K.S. Harshad Ali Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
03-04-2020 Azra Usmail & Another Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
03-04-2020 Ramesh Chander Goyal Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
03-04-2020 Union of India & Others Versus R. Thiyagarajan Supreme Court of India
03-04-2020 Justice For Rights Foundation & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
03-04-2020 Azra Usmail & Another Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir Rajasthan Revenue Board
01-04-2020 Sujay Desai & Another Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
01-04-2020 Mustafa MH Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
01-04-2020 Dr. Jerryl Banait Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
31-03-2020 Alakh Alok Srivastava Versus Union of India Supreme Court of India
30-03-2020 Ishu Gover @ Ishu @ Golu Versus U.T., Chandigarh & Another High Court of Punjab and Haryana
27-03-2020 Mustafa MH Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
27-03-2020 M.C. Mehta Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
24-03-2020 Azra Usmail & Another Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
23-03-2020 Air Traffic Controllers Guild (India) Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 M/s. Simnani Constructions & Others Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
20-03-2020 Union of India Versus P.D. Sunny & Others Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 Nelco Limited Versus The Union of India through the Revenue Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance & Others High Court of Judicature at Bombay
20-03-2020 Ajay & Others Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
20-03-2020 Azra Usmail & Another Versus Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir & Others High Court of Jammu and Kashmir
19-03-2020 B.K. Pavithra & Others Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Stephen Steward & others Versus Union of India, Rep. by the Chairman, Ordnance Factory Board, Kolkatta & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
19-03-2020 Akshay Kumar Singh Versus Union of India & Others Supreme Court of India
19-03-2020 Shaji Purushothaman Versus Union of India, Through Ministry of Corporate Affairs, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
18-03-2020 S. Stella Marry Versus Union of India, Rep, by Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench
18-03-2020 Kamil Siedczynski Versus Union of India & Another High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
18-03-2020 Union of India Versus Bharat Biotech International Ltd. & Others High Court of Delhi
18-03-2020 Ex-Gunner Virender Prasad Versus Union of India & Another Supreme Court of India
18-03-2020 Imraj Ali Molla Versus Union of India & Others High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
17-03-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To The Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others Versus M.K. Ali Kunju, Tax Assistant, O/O The Director General Income Tax (Investigation), Elamkulam & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 V.K. Anusree Versus Union of India, Represented by Director General, Central Economic Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
17-03-2020 A. Palani Versus The President, Kelur Village Panchayat, Polur Panchayat Union, Tiruvannamalai & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
17-03-2020 Aashu Pandit @ Aashu Bajpai @ Aash Narayan Sharma Versus Union of India High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
17-03-2020 Rajesh Gupta Versus Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-03-2020 Md. Arif Versus The Union of India High Court of Judicature at Calcutta
12-03-2020 Joshi Technologies International, Inc-India Projects Versus Union of India High Court of Gujarat At Ahmedabad
12-03-2020 Nitin Kumar Jain Versus Union of India, Through, Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi


LawyerServices is a Premium Legal Tech solution.


Lawyers, Law Firms, Government Departments and Corporates rely on us for, Workflow Automation, Data Aggregation, Timely Updates, Case Management, Intelligent Research, Latest Legal Data Updates and a LOT more!

If you are a legal professional, CONTACT US, in order to see how our UNIQUE solution can benefit your organization.

Features Intro Close Box