REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Appellant

V/S

STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GENERAL MEDICAL COUNCIL V. SPACKMAN [REFERRED TO]
TUCKER,L.J. IN RUSSELL V. DUKE OF NORFOLK [REFERRED TO]
NORWEST HOLST LTD. V. SECY. OF STATE FOR TRADE [REFERRED TO]
A K KRAIPAK VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH GILL VS. CHIEF ELECTION COMMISSIONER NEW DELHI [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SWADESHI COTTON MILLS NATIONAL TEXTILE CORPORATION UNION OF INDIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA UNION OF INDIA BISWAROOP CHATTERJEE ACHINTA KUMAR BISWAS NABENDU BOSE LAXMI NARAYAN VS. TULSIRAM PATEL:SADANAND JHA:G P KOUSHAL:UNION OF INDIA:STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
T SHEPHARD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
U P JAL NIGAM VS. PRABHAT CHANDRA JAIN [REFERRED TO]
KUMAON MANDAL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED VS. GIRJA SHANKAR PANT [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. N R VAIRAMANI [REFERRED TO]
CANARA BANK VS. V K AWASTHY [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. MAJOR BAHADUR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. PUBLIC CONCERN FOR GOVERNANCE TRUST [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. S K GOEL [REFERRED TO]
DEV DUTT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The claim of petitioner for grant of Kramonnati was declined by order dated 23.09.2014 (Annexure-P/8). The singular reason assigned is that petitioner's claim was considered in the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee but he was not found eligible because he could not achieve the benchmark fixed for grant of requisite benefit.

(3.) The department by filing reply has reiterated the same stand and contended that petitioner's grading based on last five years' ACRs were below the benchmark, hence, he did not get the benefit.

Click here to view full judgment.

VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address