KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN Vs. SUBHAS SHARMA
LAWS(SC)-2002-3-69
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: JAMMU & KASHMIR)
Decided on
March 07,2002
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
SUBHAS SHARMA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
RAJIV BHARTARI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(UTN)-2022-4-38] [REFERRED TO]SURAJ PRASAD VS. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM(EAST) U P ,B S N L & 4 ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-293] [REFERRED TO]
PROCESS AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CENTRE VS. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM VISHWAKARMA VS. ENGINEER IN CHIEF [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-146] [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. THAIU MAG [LAWS(GAU)-2006-1-36] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF INDIA VS. STATE OF C G [LAWS(CHH)-2003-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
ANJU TULI VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2014-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEV SINGH, AGE +62 YEARS S/O LATE SH. LACHMAN SINGH R/O HOUSE NO. 45 VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY TO GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS (DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING), NEW DELHI [LAWS(J&K)-2015-11-48] [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDER KUMAR BAKSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2002-5-18] [REFERRED TO]
SHAHEEN (MRS.) VS. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) [LAWS(J&K)-2010-2-44] [REFERRED TO]
Pitambar Deo VS. Ashok Kumar Tripathy, IAS, Commissioner -cum- Secretary to Government, Schools and Mass Education [LAWS(ORI)-2003-5-21] [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA EQUALITY FORUM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU VS. TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE SUBORDINATE OFFICERS [LAWS(MAD)-2003-7-29] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA VS. SUSHIL KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2007-5-311] [REFERRED TO]
TILAK RAJ VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
KAMALJIT SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2019-3-113] [REFERRED TO]
V.N. KOTIYA VS. THE ADMINISTRATOR [LAWS(BOM)-2014-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN VS. PRAVEEN KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-350] [REFERRED TO]
SATYADEO SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SAMANTRAY VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2016-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV G DEVRE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2003-9-45] [REFERRED TO]
DEVKI NANDAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-7-134] [REFERRED TO]
DEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-9-93] [REFERRED TO]
PROCESS AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT CENTRE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-12-67] [REFERRED TO]
PARAM BIR SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-9-31] [REFERRED TO]
CHAITALI JITENDRA KATARIYA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-129] [REFERRED TO]
P S R KRISHNA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2006-9-126] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALA SANGATHAN VS. JAHANGIR KHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2007-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN VS. SHRI PREM NARAYAN PANDEY [LAWS(CAL)-2011-4-6] [REFERRED TO]
DARSHAN SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2017-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NATH BHAT VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2003-5-41] [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR DAS S/O BEDAN DAS VS. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY [LAWS(CHH)-2019-3-176] [REFERRED TO]
AB. GANI THEKRY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(J&K)-2013-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
CHOTE LAL VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2008-1-18] [REFERRED TO]
MR. ABHINAV DIPAKBHAI PATEL VS. DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2017-4-137] [REFERRED TO]
DR. BIPIN CHANDRA LAKHERA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SIK)-2004-3-6] [REFERRED]
RAJENDRA SAIL VS. MADHAYA PRADESH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-2005-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2014-2-2] [REFERRED TO]
KARGE KAMKI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-8-67] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SUMAN MALA [LAWS(J&K)-2003-5-19] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT RANJAN DEO VS. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION [LAWS(DLH)-2020-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)In these two appeals by special leave, two orders of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu have been assailed. By the impugned orders the High Court rejected two applications filed by the appellants for transfer of the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench. As the points involved are the same, they were heard together and by this judgment both the appeals are disposed of.
(2.)The appellants are the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short 'Kendriya Vidyalaya') and its officials. The respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 5021 of 2001 and the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2000 are the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and as some dispute arose regarding their service conditions, they filed two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for adjudication. In the above two writ petitions the Kendriya Vidyalaya filed two separate applications for transfer of the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the disputes. By the impugned orders, both the applications were dismissed.
(3.)By order dated January 24, 2002, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties issued notice to the learned Attorney General of India and the Advocate-General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Advocate-General did not respond. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General has appeared on behalf of the learned Attorney-General to assist this Court.
(2.)The appellants are the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short 'Kendriya Vidyalaya') and its officials. The respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal No. 5021 of 2001 and the sole respondent in Civil Appeal No. 5448 of 2000 are the employees of the Kendriya Vidyalaya and as some dispute arose regarding their service conditions, they filed two writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the High Court for adjudication. In the above two writ petitions the Kendriya Vidyalaya filed two separate applications for transfer of the writ petitions to the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short 'the Act') the Tribunal has got jurisdiction to decide the disputes. By the impugned orders, both the applications were dismissed.
(3.)By order dated January 24, 2002, this Court after hearing the counsel for the parties issued notice to the learned Attorney General of India and the Advocate-General of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The learned Advocate-General did not respond. Mr. Altaf Ahmed, learned Additional Solicitor General has appeared on behalf of the learned Attorney-General to assist this Court.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.