HON’BLE SUPREME COURT ADMITTED THE
INTERVENTION APPLICATIION OF ALL INDIA CPWD ENGINEERS
ASSOCIATION FOR SPECIAL LEAVE PEITITION (CIVIL) No. 23333/2014. DETAILS
ARE GIVEN BELOW:
ITEM
NO.8 COURT
NO.15 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
I.A. 5/2015 in Petition(s) for Special
Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 23333/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment
and order dated 07/11/2013 in CWP No. 24279/2013 passed by the High Court of
Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh)
U.O.I. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
BABU RAM & ORS. Respondent(s)
(for
intervention)
Date
: 14/05/2015 This application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS.
JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI
[IN CHAMBER]
For
Petitioner(s)
Ms. Rekha Pandey, Adv. Ms. Sushma Suri,
Adv. Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR
For
Respondent(s)
Mr.
O. P. Bhadani, AOR
For applicant Mr. R.K. Khanna, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR Mr. Mohit Singh, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made
the following
O
R D E R
Grant of Modified Assured Career
Progression (MACP) Scheme is the subject matter in issue in SLP(C) No.23333 of
2014.
Mr. R.K. Khanna, learned senior counsel
for the applicants, states that they are also similarly situated as that of the
respondents in SLP. Ms. Rekha Pandey, learned counsel for the Union of India
has no objection.
Accordingly, application for intervention
is allowed.
(SANJAY
KUMAR-I) (RENU
DIWAN)
COURT MASTER
It is very nice see this posting, though it is dated back 14.5.2015. Kindly enlight us with the latest developments regarding slp (c) 21803, 22181, 23333.23335 as the cases are about to be tabled in supremecourt. Our steering committees actions and preparedness to conduct the case successfully may please be narrated in your site. we expect your detailed reply for our knowledge and assessment. .
ReplyDeleteCounter reply on the SLP of Shri Babu Ram, Dhirendra Singh, & Reeta Devi has not been filed as yet. Steering Committee is in constant touch with them and assured all help in getting the counter reply submitted at the earliest..
DeleteWhether counter reply will be filed before the next date of hearing i.e. 11.08.2015? Please reply.
DeleteThis is the million dollar question. But before 11.08.2015, there are two more events . 1. On 30-7-2015, Sanjiv Kumar & others, Delhi H.C, case No.4662/2013. 2.On 31-7-2015, Mohanan Naiar case No.21803/2014 at Supreme Court. These two will succeed by the case on 11-08-2015. Also, I.A.No.373/2015, I.A.No.377 are also taken up for hearing by SC. Our steering committee and TKR Pillaije must take care of these legal battle and must do good deeds for our staff members.
Deletei have some legal points to support this case, willing to share with . To whom can i contact , please reply
ReplyDeletePlease send it in writing to my e mail id aiams08@gmail.com or pillai_tkr@rediffmail.com
Deletesir i am working with delhi police and due to unexpected demise of late former president i had to remain on duty for long hours so could not reply on time for that i am regretting. i am not legal eagle but i have some knowledge of law and its principles which i want to share with all of you , hoping it will help in the case of promotional hierarchy. i will send to your e mail i d till this evening.
Deletei have some legal points to support this case, willing to share with . To whom can i contact , please reply
ReplyDeleteSharma ji, it is requested that legal points may be put on this website or you can give your e-mail on this website so that any one can contact you.
DeleteSharmi ji please mentioned your email so that we can contact you.
Deletesharmaji na ek jokh mara ki unke pass kuch ligal point ha but yah batana ka liya nahi he. tabi to after two days sharmaji not response any information
DeletePlease put your legal point here. So that it can be helpful for all other cases
ReplyDeleteSHARMAJI PLEASE PUTUP ALL LEGAL POINT IN THIS SITE SO ALL READ IT
ReplyDeleteSharmaji mar gaya.................
ReplyDeleteThe legal points sent by Shri Ashok Sharma is given below:
ReplyDeleteDear Sir,
Following are the some legal points which I hope will assist us in the pending case of promotional hierarchy.
1. aequitas est quase aequalitas (Equality is equity) means if there are no reasons for any discrimination those are entitled to it shell get equally.
2. Contra proferentum :- The principal that ambiguities in documents should be construed against the drafter.
3. LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION :- It is an expectation induced by public authority that an individual will be granted or retain substantive benefit. A failure on the part of the public authority to act accordance with the expectation is considered to be a breach of the rule of law that required predictability an certainty and is therefore (ultra vires).
The land mark decided case on this principle is R v North and East Devon health Authority, ex p coughlan (2001) QB 213(CA). The expectation must based on either an express
undertaking or arise from past conduct on the part of the public authority in order for it to be
recognized as legitimate or reasonable (AG for Hong Kong v Ng Yuen shiu (1983) 2AC629(PC).
4. retrospective legislation:- Legislation that operate on matters taking place before its enactment, e.g. by penalizing conduct that was lawful when it occurred. There is a presumption that statutes are not intended to have retroactive effect unless they merely change legal procedure.
5. Beside these principles I like to mention some provisions of the Indian Constitution No. 1, Article 14 which says equality before law or equal protection of law ( the State shell not deny to any person equality before the law. The expression equality before law is similar to Rule of law. If the state action is arbitrary or irrational, it would be treated as being against Article 14.
In E.P Royappa v.State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1974 SC 555, the Supreme Court has made it clear that from a positivistic point of view, equality is antithetic to arbitrariness. In fact equality an arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belong to the rule of law in a republic while the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Where an act is arbitrary, it is implicit in it that it is unequal both according to political logic and constitutional law and it is therefore violative of Article 14.
6. The Preamble of Indian Constitution also promises about equality of status and opportunity to all it’s citizen. Article 39[d] which talks about EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK. In Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 the Supreme Court has held that the principle of ,” EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK though not a fundamental right,” is certainly a constitutional goal and, therefore, capable of enforcement through constitutional remedy under Article 32 of the constitution.
SUBMITTED FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION, AND REPLY IF ANY.
Your Ashok Sharma
Vinod Sharma: What preparations/strategy the steering committee has made for tomorrow's hearing ?
ReplyDeletewhat is the out come of yesterday's hearing? Please intimate our members.
ReplyDelete