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



M. Arvindakshan v/s Employees Provident Fund Organisation, New Delhi & Others


Company & Directors' Information:- TO THE NEW PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U72900DL2006PTC235208

    Original Application No. 180/00752 of 2014

    Decided On, 29 October 2015

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. U. SARATHCHANDRAN
    By, JUDICIAL MEMBER

    For the Applicant: P. Ramakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: N.N. Sugunapalan, Sr., S. Sujin, Advocates.



Judgment Text

U. Sararathchandran, Judicial Member.

1. Applicant is a Junior Hindi Translator working under the respondent Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). He was working under Respondent No.2. He has approached this Tribunal being aggrieved by Annexure A/1 order dt 3.9.14 transferring him from sub Regional Office, Kozhikode to Kannur office of the EPFO. He is further aggrieved by Annexure A/2 relieving order issued to him on the same day along with Annexure A/1. Applicant contents that Hindi Translators working in the EPFO were being entrusted with additional responsibilities in addition to their own duties. As this has affected the timely completion of official language work of the Hindi translators, the EPFO had issued Annexure A/4 circular to all Zonal Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioners directing them not to assign any responsibilities to the Hindi Translators other than their basic duties. Despite this applicant was assigned with duties as indicated in Annexure A/4, A/6 & A/7 burdening him with a huge quantum of work including the work of Section Supervisor, Accounts Officer, etc. which are more clerical in nature. He made Annexure A/8 representation against this. Peeved by Annexure A/8 representation sent by him in this regard, respondent No.2, at the instance of Respondent No.3, issued Annexure A/1 transfer order transferring him from Kozhikode to Sub Regional Office of EPFO at Kannur. Applicant states that as he was under treatment for cancer at MIMS Hospital, Kozhikode since 2009 a transfer at this juncture would jeopardise his continuing treatment. He further states that he has school going children, eldest studying in the XII standard at KVS, Kozhikode. As his wife is employed in the Postal Department, she cannot accompany him to Kannur. Applicant contends that Annexure A/1 & A/2 are illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and that the transfer is punitive in nature.

2. Respondents on the other hand point out that as per Annexure R1 policy decision taken by EPFO, Annexure A/4 decision has been superseded. Officers and officials in Official Language wing are therefore entrusted with some additional work which they could carry on without affecting their routine work so that the other works entrusted to the official language staff will promote implementation of official language as the entire work entrusted can be fully carried out in Hindi. According to respondents, the medical condition of applicant was never brought to the notice of the respondents. As the posting of the applicant is in a supervisory level, in the normal course, the work done by the clerical staff members are scrutinized by the supervisory officers. For the smooth functioning of the office all the officials are required to attend to any work assigned to them especially on certain circumstances where the target to be achieved is within a limited period. Respondents further state that due to the troublesome and adamant attitude of the applicant, most of the staff in the Sub Regional Office, Kozhikode are reluctant to participate in Hindi competitions and other volunteer activities. Applicant is not attending to Hindi implementation work and not attending to any work other than Hindi entrusted to him. Therefore Respondent No.2 with the powers vested on him transferred the applicant to SRO, Kannur where there is no official language staff. According to respondents, applicant was transferred to Kannur due to administrative exigencies. There is no personal interest or grudge towards the applicant. Respondents therefore pray for rejecting the OA.

3. A reply statement was filed by Respondent No. 3 also. He states that when applicant was assigned additional work vide Annexure A/6, he stopped performing the said work. Annexure A/7 order was issued directing him to work in Enforcement No.3 in addition to his present duties. All other supervisory officials except applicant perform the duties assigned to them. Instead of attending to the daily work required of him, applicant sent A/8 representation.

4. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant refuting the contentions of the respondents. He produced Annexure A/9 Office Order to indicate that he was allotted with heavy work deliberately than the other Hindi Translators working in the same office. He has also produced Annexure A/10 to indicate that when the Zonal Office of the State Bank of Travancore, Kozhikode requested Respondent No.3 to send the applicant in connection with the Hindi Day Celebrations his service was not spared informing that he cannot be sent during the working days.

5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. S. Sujin, learned counsel appearing for respondents 1-3. It is settled law that the courts/Tribunals will not interfere with the orders of transfer unless it is done in violation of existing rules or is vitiated by mala fides. In the instant case respondents contend that applicant was transferred from Kozhikode to Kannur on administrative grounds especially in view of the circumstance that Kannur Office is not having Hindi Translators. Besides, respondents contend that applicant had been behaving in a recalcitrant manner sticking on to his argument that Hindi Translators need not do the work other than the work of Official Language. According to respondents, this was done only for the smooth functioning of the office.

6. Applicant relies on Annexure A/1 communication. It states that Hindi Translators shall not be burdened with other office work lest it should reduce their efficiency as Translators. However, respondents contend that the authorities took a subsequent policy decision that if the Hindi Translators are familiar with works in different sections of the office, gradually the entire work of the department can be performed in Hindi so that by working in different sections of the office the efficiency of Hindi Translators will be improved. Shri Sujin, learned counsel for the respondents referred to Union of India and others v. Janarddhan Debanath AIR 2004 SC 1632. In that case, the Apex Court considered the transfer of some officials in the Postal Department from Agartala to Meghalaya Division. The Union of India took the stand that the transfer was done in public interest and on account of exigencies of administration. In that case it was also pointed out that the respondent misbehaved with a senior Lady Officer and she was confined and dragged from one room to another with a view to force her to withdraw the charge-sheet. She was abused in filthy language and physically manhandled. It was in that context the aforesaid officials were transferred. The Apex Court in that case observed:

'. . . . . The manner, nature and extent of exercise to be undertaken by Courts/Tribunal in a case to adjudge whether it casts a stigma or constitutes one by way of punishment would also very much depend upon the consequences flowing from the order and as to whether it adversely affected any service conditions-status, service prospects financially and same yardstick, norms or standards cannot be applied to all category of cases. Transfers unless they involve any such adverse impact or visits the persons concerned with any penal consequences, are not required to be subjected to same type of scrutiny, approach and assessment as in the case of dismissal, discharge, reversion or termination and utmost latitude should be left with the department concerned to enforce discipline, decency and decorum in public service which are indisputably essential to maintain equality of public service and meet untoward administrative exigencies to ensure smooth functioning of the administration'.

The Apex Court further observed:

'. . . . . For the purposes of effecting a transfer the question of holding an enquiry to find out whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee is unnecessary and what is needed is the prima facie satisfaction of the authority concerned on the contemporary reports about the occurrence complained of and if the requirement, as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, of holding an elaborate enquiry is to be insisted upon the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration to enforce decorum and ensure probity would get frustrated. The question whether respondents could be transferred to a different division is a matter for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities and the extent of solution for the problems faced by the administration. It is not for this court to direct one way or the other.'

7. In the instant case, the respondents state that the applicant was not co-operative in the matter of the work entrusted to him in the other sections of the office, which according to respondents is necessary for the smooth functioning of the office. They further state that it was on account of the defiant attitude of the applicant in performing the duties assigned, applicant was issued Annexure A/7 order. According to respondents, there was no mention of this health condition in any of the representations or any such request was made by him for giving accommodation to him on the ground of his health.

8. This Tribunal has perused the medical records produced by the applicant. Annexure A/3 medical record shows that the cancer on the tongue was treated in 2009 and that after treatment furthe

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

r examination revealed that the disease has become 'negative'. As per Annexure A/3 he was directed to appear for review. According to applicant he is regularly visiting the MIMS hospital, Kozhikkode for the periodical review. It appears that applicant is not presently troubled by the disease of cancer and that he needs only a periodical review of his case. Kozhikode and Kannur are not very far off places. It takes only less than 3 hours to undertake travel between these towns. Visiting Kozhikode for periodical clinical review does not appear to be a big burden for the applicant as highlighted by him in this OA. Though the applicant has mentioned that his daughter is studying in 12th Standard, no records were produced. No serious arguments were made on that ground either. His wife is reported to be working in the Postal Department. 9. Taking stock of the facts and circumstances in this case, this Tribunal is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of transfer. Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
O R







Judgements of Similar Parties

04-08-2020 Regional Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Ins. Co. Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Capt. Bibhuti Mohan Jha National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
31-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Rajesh Kumar Dy. Manager, New Delhi Versus Biking Food Products (P) Ltd., Telangana National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
30-07-2020 Som Nath Bhatt Versus Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-07-2020 New Aadinath Plywood & Hardware Through Its Proprietor, Shri Sanjay, M.P. Versus Nandini Photo Studio, M.P. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vikash Kumar National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
27-07-2020 Amar Chand Singh Versus C.B.I. Thru. Director, New Delhi & Others High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Lucknow Bench
24-07-2020 Hindustan Insecticides Ltd., Through Its Authorized Representative, New Delhi Versus Thakar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
24-07-2020 National Insurance Company Limited Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus M/s. D.D Spinners Pvt. Ltd., Panipat National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
22-07-2020 Director of Income Tax-II (International Taxation) New Delhi & Another Versus M/s. Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. Supreme Court of India
22-07-2020 M/s. TDI Infrastructure Ltd. (Through Its Authorised Representative), New Delhi Versus Sukhmal Jain & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
21-07-2020 Maruti Suzuki India Limited, New Delhi Versus Mukesh Kumar & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-07-2020 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through National Legal Vertical, New Delhi Versus M/s. Krishna Spico Industries Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-07-2020 M/s. Arudra Engineering Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, R. Natraj Versus M/s. Pathanjali Ayurved Limited, Represented by its Director, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-07-2020 G. Suneetha Versus The Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Defense, New Delhi & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
10-07-2020 Life Insurance Corporation of India Through Its Additional Secretary (Legal), New Delhi Versus Anil Laxman Matade National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 New Nagpur Mahila Gramin Vikas Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd. & Another Versus Suman Balaji Thakre National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
09-07-2020 Abdul Wahid Bhat Versus Union of India, through Defence Secretary, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Khem Raj Verma & Others Versus Union of India, through Ministry of Human Resource & Development, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench
09-07-2020 Ravindra Versus Union of India, through its Under Secretary, General Administration Department, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
08-07-2020 Velankani Information Systems Limited, Represented by its Manging Director, Kiron D. Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs Government of India, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
07-07-2020 Rajesh Kumar Versus Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
03-07-2020 Bar Council of India, New Delhi, Represented by Its Secretary Versus Lokanath Behera Ips, Director, Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram & Others High Court of Kerala
01-07-2020 Seema Shukla Versus New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Another High Court of Delhi
30-06-2020 Dr. P.S. Sandeep & Others Versus The Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
29-06-2020 Ramesh Malhotra & Another Versus Emaar Mgf Land Limited, Through its Managing Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
29-06-2020 R. Sampath Versus Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, rep. by its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
26-06-2020 Sri Ananta Das, Assam & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi & Others High Court of Gauhati
25-06-2020 India Pentecostal Church of God, Represented by Its General President, Pastor (Dr.) T. Valson Abraham & Another Versus Government of India, Represented by Its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
23-06-2020 M/s. Acme Trade And Agencies, ASSAM Versus Union of India Rep. By The Secy. to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
23-06-2020 Swetha Shri Selvakumar Versus Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
22-06-2020 M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited Versus Ravula Shanker @ Shanker Goud & Another High Court of for the State of Telangana
22-06-2020 M/s. New Green Medical Hall Versus State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar & Others High Court of Judicature at Patna
18-06-2020 Surendra Kumar Bhilawe Versus The New India Assurance Company Limited Supreme Court of India
17-06-2020 D.D. Industries Ltd., New Delhi Versus Jasmeet Walia & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
17-06-2020 Ashish Aggarwal Versus Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 M/s. Sbi Cards & Payments Services Ltd., New Delhi Versus Vishal Sabharwal & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
16-06-2020 Union of India, Represented by The Secretary Posts, Ministry of Communication, Department of Posts, New Delhi & Others Versus G. Lakshmi & Others High Court of Kerala
15-06-2020 New India Assurance Company Ltd. Through Its Duly Constituted Attorney Manager, New Delhi Versus Aasha Devi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 Samri Devi Shaw Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai & Others National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
15-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Thampanoor, Now Represented by Its Manager, Regional Office, Kochi Versus Managing Director, KSRTC, Thiruvananthapuram High Court of Kerala
12-06-2020 Dr. D. Euvalingam & Others Versus The Secretary to Government, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
12-06-2020 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Punnam Chander complex, Chowrastha, Hanmkonda, Warangal Versus Sangeraboina Uppalaiah & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
12-06-2020 M.V. Ramani Versus The Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
09-06-2020 Cry for Life Society, Thrissur, Represented by Its President, E.C. George & Others Versus Union of India, Represented by The Cabinet Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 Suresh Nair Versus Union of India, Represented by the Ministry of External Affairs, E-Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi, Represented by its Secretary & Others High Court of Kerala
05-06-2020 Tanveer Jahan Versus All India Institute Of Medical Science, Through Its Director, New Delhi & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
04-06-2020 Goods & Services Tax Network, New Delhi & Others Versus M/s. Leo Distributors, Thrissur & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 New India Assurance Company, R.B.Road Extension, Mysore Versus Madevan & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
02-06-2020 Citizens Legal Right Association, Rep. by Its President, Joshy Kalluveettil & Another Versus Union of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
02-06-2020 Indian Overseas Bank Officers' Association, Reg No: 321/MDS, Rep by its Joint General Secretary, R. Muthukumar Versus Union of India, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Union of India, Rep. by the Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying & Fisheries, Government of India, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
27-05-2020 Jeetha Agnes Versus Union of India, Represented by The Secretary To Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
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 The Bank of New York Mellon, Through its attorney Navneet Singh Versus Indowind Energy Limited, Nungambakkam, Chennai High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-05-2020 A. Sennimalai Versus Tourism Finance Corporation of India Ltd., New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
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 K.N. Anilkumar Versus Bar Council of India, Represented by Its Secretary, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
18-05-2020 RM. Swamy Versus Government of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 T. Sivakumar Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, A-Wing, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
15-05-2020 Jacob George Versus The Secretary Department of Information & Broadcasting, New Delhi & Others High Court of Karnataka
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
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 B. Abimathi Versus The Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
05-05-2020 K. Lakshmanan, Adilabad, Telangana Versus Union of India, Represented by Secretary, Department of Defence, New Delhi & Others High Court of Kerala
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
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 T. Hubertson Versus The Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
28-04-2020 Marrapu Sankara Rao Versus Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, New Delhi High Court of Andhra Pradesh
27-04-2020 Dr. Suresh & Others Versus University Grants Commission, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi & Others In the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur
24-04-2020 Dr. G.P. Arulraj Versus The Government of India, Rep by its Secretary to Government, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
21-04-2020 State Bank of India, A Government of India Undertaking Rep by its DGM and Branch Head Stressed Asset Management Branch, Hyderabad Versus The Union of India, Ministry of Finance Rep by its Secretary Services Tax Wing, South Block, New Delhi & Others High Court of for the State of Telangana
21-04-2020 T. Sivakumar Versus The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, New Delhi & Others High Court of Judicature at Madras
20-04-2020 Dr. Mahesh Sharma & Another Versus Cabinet Secretary, Govt. of India, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi & Others High Court of Rajasthan
16-04-2020 M/s. Mahaluxmi & Co., Rep by its Partner K. Jagatheeswaran Versus M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Rep by its Chairman, New Delhi & Another High Court of Judicature at Madras
16-04-2020 Priya Acka Thomas & Another Versus The Government of India, Rep by its Joint Secretary, 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
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
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
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 New Delhi Television Limited Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Supreme Court of India
20-03-2020 Aura Synergy India Ltd. & Another Versus M/s. New Age False Ceiling Co Pvt. Ltd. & Another High Court of Delhi
20-03-2020 Prem Devi Versus Delhi Development Authority Through Its Vice Chairman Vikas Sadan, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
20-03-2020 Suresh Chandra Das Versus The State of Tripura to be represented by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Secretariat Complex, West Tripura & Another High Court of Tripura
20-03-2020 Jeetendra Kumar Doley Versus Union of India, Represented by the Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Guwahati Bench Guwahati
19-03-2020 Income Tax Officer, Ward 26(4), Central Revenue Building, New Delhi Versus Registrar of Companies, M/s. Visual Learning Pvt. Ltd. & Others National Company Law Tribunal New Delhi
19-03-2020 R. Raghavan, Partner of Dinamalar Group, Dinamalar (RF) New Standard Press Annex, Trichy & Others Versus Educomp Solutions Ltd, Through its Senior Manager Nithish Kumar & Others Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
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 Raj Kumar Versus Delhi Development Authority Vikas Sadan Near Ina Market New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
18-03-2020 Praveen Kumar Versus M/s. RPS Infrastructure Limited, New Delhi National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
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
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
16-03-2020 The Substitute Assistant Teacher's Association, New Salem Tamenglong Versus State of Manipur High Court of Manipur
16-03-2020 Kuldeep Kumar & Others Versus Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi & Others Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
16-03-2020 Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., New Delhi & Another Versus Malay Kumar Majumder & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 A. K. Singh, Chief Publicity Inspector, Public Relation Office, Northern Railway, New Delhi Versus General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi & Another Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
13-03-2020 Sheetal Medicare Products Pvt. Ltd., Maharashtra Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Maharashtra & Another National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC
13-03-2020 D. Sasirekha Versus The Assistant Secretary Medical Council of India Pocket-14, New Delhi High Court of Judicature at Madras