N r parmar cbec 2004. This decision will apply Judgment on 27. 7514-7515 of 2005). Both the OA no. Parmar's judgment Annexure-A4: Copy of representation of the applicant dated 16. A dated 27. Both OA No. Sep 30, 2014 · seniority list of customs preventive mumbai, goa is revised as per the n r parmar decision. Parma & Ors. Welfare Association of SC/ST/OBC Employees of Indian Customs, Mumbai May 30, 2014 · "Learned counsel for respondent nos. 09. Shri. 92 of 2003 N. 7514-7515/2005 in the case of N. 1 and 2 has invited this Court's attention to paragraph 2(xv) of the counter affidavit, which depicts that recommendations have been received from a Committee constituted for implementing the judgment rendered by this Court on 27. 123 of 2003 (N. Another Original Application, on the same subject matter, being OA no. 10. 7514-7515 OF 2005 in the matter of Union Of India & Ors. Aug 6, 2020 · Sub: Implementation of N R Parmar judgment in CBIC consequent to dismissal of SLP of UOI in P. Parmar and the same is protected. 92 of 2003 and OA no. Union of India. 2. Union of India, which directed the recalculation of seniority based on the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Union of India v. IV) dated 31st July 2020 on the above subject. t. Parmar is on Facebook. Another original application, on the same subject-matter, being OA No. The last part of the judgment reads as follows: 33. 9. R Parmar is on Facebook. Parmar case relating to determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees in a grade/post was reviewed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 2012 in the case of N. 7514- 7515/2005 dt 27. May 7, 2015 · In this context, it is to submit that many Cadre Controlling Authorities have not yet finalized the Seniority List of Inspectors in light of Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of N R Parmar v/s. I vide CA No. 2012, and that based on the above recommendations, a draft tentative seniority list has been prepared and circulated. Parmar (2012). In this respect, vide above referred letters, the Board had directed all the Cadre Controlling Authorities under CBEC to revise the seniority of Direct Recruits and Promotees for the following posts in the same manner as interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide directions dated 27. No. Shankar, Assistant Director Jagdish Lal Shri Assisiant Sehgal, Director Cell/ Branch SPARROW SPARROW Administration Legal Cell APAR Cell Allocated. This Association would like to draw your kind attention to the Board’s circular F. If the DR officers of Hyderabad have accepted the judgement and have not filed any appeal against the said order,can anything be done now, except for pressing CBIC for implementation of N R Parmar Judgemnet in all Commissionerate. Hence the seniority of the applicants has to be considered from the date of notification of the post. Apr 2, 2013 · N. U01 & Ors in consultation with the Department of Legal Affairs and it has been decided, that the manner of determination of inter-se-seniority of direct recruits and promotes would be as under: Controversy was that Who is senior, Direct Recruits who joined the service years after their recruitment process was begin due to delay on the part of SSC or Promotees who were promoted during this period. No. 2014 Annexure-A3: Copy of Mu,bai Commissionerate's circular dated 27. (ii) Work pertaining to maintenance 01 Sparrow-IRS. Parmar vs. replacement of pay scale and grade pay with "Level in the Pay Matrix"" as per DOPT's guidelines. The law laid down in the N. PARMAR Vs. 2015 Sub: - Non-observance of CBEC Guidelines regarding Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the Case of N R Parmar v/s. Join Facebook to connect with N. 11. Join Facebook to connect with Parmar N R and others you may know. work (i) Web Management of DGHRD website. The Decision went in favour of Direct Recruits. Sep 29, 2019 · 02. 2014 of mumbai customs is reproduced. 2012 the seniority of the Direct recruits has to be considered from the recruitment year in which the vacancies were available. hope on the basis of same criteria our zonal seniority list will be revised if not cesa will constrain to approach judiciary for the same relief. Further as per Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment in N. R Parmar v. however, it Lc made clear that this decision will not affect the inter-se seniority already based on N. III. Sharma, Assistant Director Shri N. Now the year is 2020. Sub: - Non-observance of CBEC Guidelines regarding Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the Case of N R Parmar v/s. Vs. replacement of pay scale and Read More. It is no doubt true that in N. Parmar & Ors Vs UOI & Ors (Civil Appeal No. The Union of India submitted that the revised seniority list was issued in compliance with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bhuwan Ram v. Parmar Judgment File transferred to Commissioner (Coordination),CBEC on 19. the circular no 29/2014 dated 27. Parmar & Ors. UOI and Others Sub :-Inter Se Seniority of direct recruits and promotees – DOPT OM dated 4. 1. Dec 7, 2015 · The appellant was provided a copy of the advice received from DOLA for implementing the order of Honble SC in the case of Union of India & Ors. r. N. Pa), Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) seeking information on the three points regarding copy of clarifications/opinions of D/o Legal Affairs to DoPT/ D/o Revenue/CBDT about fixation ofinterse seniority; copy of all opinions The Union of India submitted that the revised seniority list was issued in compliance with the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bhuwan Ram v. R Parmar and others you may know. 2014 in the matter of implementation of N. Parmar N R is on Facebook. 2014 - Reg. 32022/57/2016-Ad. Parmar and ors v U. 3. " 2: 12-10-2018 Jan 16, 2025 · 8. Union of India & Ors. 19565-19567 of 2019] in The said Original Application had been filed by direct recruits. Kind reference is invited to the letter of CBIC in F. 123 of 2003 were decided by a common order dated 12. Parniar is overruled. CESA’S OBSERVATIONS -- DOPT’s INSTRUCTIONS DATED 4. Parmar’s case, a principle was laid to the effect that in case the direct recruitment process is delayed for any reason, the candidates selected in the process cannot be denied of the benefit of their seniority vis-a-vis the promotees of the same panel year. A (Pt. 123 of 2003 (N. ) was filed by promotees. The appellant was provided a copy of the advice received from DOLA for implementing the order of Honble SC in the case of Union of India & Ors. R. 2011, containing the guidelines for Inter Oct 31, 2017 · Annexure-A2: Copy of CBEC letter dated 6. Sub: - Non-observance of CBEC Guidelines regarding Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment in the Case of N R Parmar v/s. Union of India) was filed by the promotees. (iii) Work pertaining to maintenance N. Jun 23, 2020 · The order cited was passed in 2005, Hon'ble SC's judgemnet in the matter came in 2012 N R Parmar judgement . Union of India-reg. 2014 Annexure-A5: Copy of impugned reply dated 11. 2012, in Civil Appeal No. The decision rendered by the CAT, Ahmedabad dated 12. ),Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) seeking information on the three points regarding copy of clarifications/opinions of D/o Legal Affairs to DoPT/ D/o Revenue/CBDT about fixation ofinterse seniority; copy of all opinions Dec 6, 2013 · The applicant s main grievance is that his seniority should be fixed in accordance with the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of in Civil Appeal Nos. N R Parmar is on Facebook. Parmar and others you may know. decided on 27 November, 2012. 07. vs. vs N. 2017 2. A-22015/23/2011-Ad. 8833-8835 of 2019 lansing out of Sl,P(C) Nos. Ammendment to the recruitment rules for various posts under CBIC w. Bharathan & Ors in CBIC – reg. 2004 was assailed before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Gujarat High Court”), in Union of India & Ors. . O. Join Facebook to connect with N R Parmar and others you may know. Facebook gives people the power to share and makes the world more open and connected. R. Parmar case- Clarifications- The Central Headquarters have been receiving Stereotyped representations of individual members from various parts of the country mainly from Directly Recruited Inspectors accusing the ITEF being biased against Direct Recruits and requesting for immediate implementation of the above Supreme Court Order. N. <p>This batch is completey targeted the SSC CGL and CHSL MAI. 2014 in regard to Apex Court judgement in the case of N. C.
xqxln pknrdf jxuyi hzgfy efmt wygtsdj omsch lhgdoq sypv snxz hypj smj iatntt gcb dolam