High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 09 GUJ CK 0016

Union of India (UOI) and Another vs A.N. Baranda

Gujarat High Court · Decided on 6 September 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.M. Sahai, J · K. S. Jhaveri, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Special Civil Application No. 4700 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 362 words

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—By way of this writ petition, the Petitioners - original Respondents have challenged the judgment and order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 213 of 2003 whereby the Tribunal has allowed the original application filed by the Respondent herein only on the ground of non-payment of the subsistence allowance by the Petitioners to the Respondent during the course of the departmental inquiry.

2.

We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi for the Petitioners and learned Counsel Mr. Anand L. Sharma appearing for the Respondent.

3.

We have gone through the impugned judgment of the Tribunal. We are of the view that in view of the subsequent judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Bhanu Gaur v. Committee, Management of M.M. Degree College and Ors. reported in 2004 (1) S.C. SLJ 3, the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. In the above decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, in head note (B), it is observed as under:

Non-payment of subsistence allowance cannot vitiate the proceedings unless prejudice is shown and established. It has to be specifically pleaded or established as to in what way the affected employee is handicapped because of non-receipt of subsistence allowance.

4.

In the above view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Hence, the impugned order is bad in law and is required to be quashed and set aside.

5.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 28.11.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 213 of 2003 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal to decide the Original Application on merits. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Tribunal shall reconsider the same depending on the merits of the case, without being influenced by this order. Rule is made absolute. The parties shall bear their own costs.