TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the orders refusing to permit crossing of the efficiency bar under Fundamental Rule 25 were valid; (ii) whether interest was payable on the delayed pensionary payments.
Issue (i): whether the orders refusing to permit crossing of the efficiency bar under Fundamental Rule 25 were valid.
Analysis: The refusal to cross the efficiency bar was made after the departmental proceedings had remained pending for decades and after the appellant had been subjected to prolonged suspension without justification. The Court held that a prejudicial decision under Fundamental Rule 25, when taken in such circumstances and after retirement, could not be insulated from judicial review. The competent authority was required to act on an objective consideration and to afford a fair hearing before making an order that visited the appellant with civil consequences. The grounds relied upon, namely failure to pass the departmental examination and the alleged unsatisfactory record, were not sustainable on the facts found. The demand for retrospective denial of the efficiency bar benefit was inconsistent with natural justice and fair play.
Conclusion: The refusal to allow crossing of the efficiency bar was invalid and was quashed, in favour of the appellant.
Issue (ii): whether interest was payable on the delayed pensionary payments.
Analysis: The delayed payment of pension and the monetary consequences flowing from the wrongful orders justified compensation by way of interest. The Court followed its settled practice of awarding interest on delayed pensionary dues and found no reason to depart from it on the facts of the case.
Conclusion: Interest at 12% per annum was payable on the delayed monetary dues, in favour of the appellant.
Final Conclusion: The appellant obtained complete relief against the impugned administrative action, with the refusal to permit the efficiency bar being set aside and consequential monetary and pensionary benefits directed to be paid with interest.
Ratio Decidendi: A prejudicial administrative order affecting civil consequences cannot be sustained when made after inordinate delay, without fair hearing, and without objective consideration of relevant facts; such an order remains subject to judicial review.
TaxTMI 
