Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. versus DR. S.S. SRIVASTAVA AND ANR.

Decided
10 February 1997
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1997] 1 S.C.R. 1120 · 1997 INSC 129

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Leave granted.

p. 1120, margin G

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent-in-person.

p. 1120, margin G

This appeal by special leave arises from the order passed by the Tribunal in Contempt Petition No. 35/1996 in pending O.A. No. 1156/94. The Tribunal had issued interim directions that "In the circumstances, we hereby direct the respondents as an interim measure to consider the applicant to the Senior Scale and Junior Administrative Grade according to the Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Accordingly, M.P. 11/96 is disposed of in the light of the above. The Respondents are direded to file their reply to the amended C.A. by 14.3.1996. The matter be kept before the Registrar at Nagpur on 14.3.1996." It is stated by the appellants that they have considered the case on June 7, 1996 and found him not fit to the said Senior Time Scale. Thereafter, the respondent filtd contempt petition in the Tribunal and the Tribunal has passed the impugned order relevant part of which is as under :

p. 1121, margin A

" ... the State Government should also consider the fitness of the applicant for being promoted to the Junior Administrative Grade from an appropriate date strictly as per rules within two months from the date of the communication of this order. We make it clear that we are passing this order as an interim measure and the applicant will be entitled for arrears, though the applicant would be entitled for notional fixation of pay on promotion to Senior

p. 1121, margin C

Time Scale from 1.4.1993." Thus, this appeal by special leave.

p. 1121, margin D

Though the learned counsel for the appellants as well as respondent-inperson seek to raise contentions on merits, we think that this is not an appropriate stage for us to go into the merits in the matter. In view of the stand taken by the appellants that the case of the respondent was considered by the Government and found that he was not eligible for grant of Senior Time Scale, as directed by the Tribunal, the appropriate course should be that the Tribunal may decide the matter on merits and then deal with it according to law. Instead, unfortunately, the Tribunal has exceeded its power in giving the directions, even before the matter was considered on merits. Under these circumstances, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside. The Tribunal is directed to decide the matter on merits and dispose of the main O.A. within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the order.

p. 1121, margin E

The appeal is accordingly allowed. R.P. Appeal allowed.

p. 1121, margin G