Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Supreme Court Upholds Seniority Rules in Central Information Service</h1> <h3>A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors.</h3> A.K. Bhatnagar and Ors. Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors. - JT 1990 (4) SC 610, 1990 (2) SCALE 949, (1991) 1 SCC 544, [1990] Supp 2 SCR 638 Issues:1. Regularization of service and seniority disputes among direct recruits in the Central Information Service.2. Interpretation of service rules and notifications regarding seniority and promotion.3. Judicial review of government actions in accordance with service rules.Analysis:1. The case involved Civil Appeals and a Writ Petition regarding the regularization of service in the Central Information Service (C.I.S) and the subsequent seniority disputes among direct recruits. The petitioners were initially not regularly recruited but were later regularized in service in 1977 through amendments to the Rules.2. The Central Information Service Rules, 1959, established the C.I.S, with provisions for direct recruitment and promotion within the service. The dispute in this case focused on the inter se seniority among direct recruits to Grade IV, with specific reference to the regularized employees and their placement in the service hierarchy.3. The notification issued on 27th January, 1977, regularized the services of certain ad hoc employees in Grade IV of the C.I.S. The petitioners challenged the direction in the notification that placed regularized employees below the regular recruits up to 1970 based on that year's examination results.4. The High Court and Division Bench decisions favored the regularized employees, considering their officiating service from 1964 to 1977 for determining seniority. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that seniority in service is governed by service rules, and in the absence of specific provisions, the length of service is a key factor.5. The Court rejected arguments equating regular recruitment examinations with the screening process for regularized employees. It upheld the government's decision to place regularized officers below regular recruits based on the 1970 examination results, as per the service rules.6. The Court clarified that disputes over seniority between direct recruits and promotees should be resolved according to the rules governing each category. It highlighted the importance of adhering to service rules and refraining from judicial interference when government actions align with the established regulations.7. The Court acknowledged concerns regarding potential reversion of the petitioner due to the seniority dispute. It suggested allowing the petitioner to hold a supernumerary post without further promotion until entitled based on seniority as per the regularization notification.8. The Court dismissed claims for considering past service of regularized employees not covered by the regularization notification, emphasizing adherence to the rules for determining seniority. Ultimately, the Civil Appeals were allowed, setting aside the lower court judgments and dismissing the claims filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal.9. The Court reiterated the importance of following service rules to avoid disruptions and urged governments to adhere to the rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution. It emphasized the binding nature of such rules and the need for compliance to prevent issues arising from deviations.10. The Court concluded by stating that there would be no order as to costs in the case, emphasizing the significance of adherence to service rules and the rule of law in matters related to service regularization and seniority disputes.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found