Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Hon'ble Shri. Justice Maralur Indrakumar Arun
  • Hon`ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Judges
  • Hon'ble Shri. Justice Maralur Indrakumar Arun
  • Hon`ble Mr. Justice G.Narendar
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter arises from a petition challenging an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench. The court record shows that the petition was heard by G. Narendar J., with learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and for the caveator. The Tribunal had reasoned that an applicant who was granted an annual increment on 01.07.2013 had completed one year of service as on 30.06.2014 (the date of his superannuation). The Tribunal also placed reliance on its own order in O.A.No.165/2019, an order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P.No.15732/2017, and the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court in July, 2018. The present court reviewed the Tribunal's reasoning and the related authorities.

Legal Issues Presented

The opinion addresses a procedural matter and does not frame distinct legal issues.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
O.A.No.165/2019 Relied upon by the Tribunal in support of its reasoning (specific rule or principle not detailed in the provided opinion). The court noted that the Tribunal placed reliance on this order and found no error in the Tribunal's reasoning that referred to it.
W.P.No.15732/2017 (High Court of Judicature at Madras) Relied upon by the Tribunal in support of its reasoning (specific rule or principle not detailed in the provided opinion). The court observed the Tribunal's reliance on this High Court order and accepted the Tribunal's reasoning as correct insofar as it depends on that order.
Dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Hon'ble Apex Court in July, 2018 Relied upon by the Tribunal as reinforcing its view (specific rule or principle not detailed in the provided opinion). The court recorded that the Tribunal relied on the dismissal and did not find any error in the Tribunal's approach that took the dismissal into account.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court heard counsel for both sides and reviewed the reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal's core factual-legal finding was that the applicant, who received an annual increment on 01.07.2013, had completed one year of service as on 30.06.2014 (the date of superannuation). The Tribunal supported that conclusion by relying on its own earlier order (O.A.No.165/2019), an order of the Madras High Court (W.P.No.15732/2017), and the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court in July 2018. After considering these points, the court stated that it did not find any error in the Tribunal's reasonings.

Holding and Implications

PETITION REJECTED

Direct effect on the parties: The petition was dismissed on the ground that it is devoid of merits; the court affirmed the Tribunal's reasoning and rejected the petition.

Broader implications: The opinion does not set out any new legal principle or broader precedent beyond affirming the Tribunal's application of its cited authorities.

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    UNION OF INDIA v. M.SIDDARAJ S/O. MURUGESAN

    ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the caveator.

    2. We do not find any error in the reasonings set out by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Central Administrative Tribunal has reasoned that the applicant who is granted annual increment on 01.07.2013 had completed one year of service as on 30.06.2014 i.e., the date of his superannuation and has also placed reliance on its own order passed in O.A.No.165/2019 and the order of the High Court of Judicature of Madras rendered in W.P.No.15732/2017 and the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Honble Apex Court in July, 2018.

    3. In that view of the matter, petition being devoid of merits stands rejected. (sd/-) JUDGE (Sd/-) JUDGE Jm/-

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    UNION OF INDIA v. M.SIDDARAJ S/O. MURUGESAN
    (Oct 22, 2020)