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

I.C.A.R. AND ORS. versus ASIT BARAN CHAUDHURI AND ANR.

Decided
13 March 2007
Judges listed
AR. LAKSHMANAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 933 · 2007 INSC 281

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. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 934, margin D

2

Heard Ms.lndu Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel for the respondents.

p. 934, margin E

3

We have perused the order impugned in this appeal.

p. 934, margin E

4

The High Court while allowing the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein directed the appellant-authorities to consider the claim of the respondent for benefit of Agricultural Research Service in scientist 'S' Grade with effect from the date he became entitled. The High Court has also further observed that while considering aforesaid, the Authority concerned will also consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. For the said purpose, the respondent herein was granted liberty to make a representation before appropriate Authority along with a copy of the order of the High Court and in such cases, the said Authority will decide the matter within two months from submission of the representation. It is pertinent to notice that no one appeared on behalf of the appellant-Authorities before the High Court. The High Court considered the matter in the absence of any argument being advanced on behalf of the appellants. Subsequently, a Review Petition was filed by the appellant herein which was also dismissed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the above two orders, the above Civil Appeal has been filed.

pp. 934–935, margin E

5

It is now stated by the learned senior counsel for the respondent herein that pursuant to the direction given by the High Court, the respondent has already made a representation on 16.12.2004 to the Secretary, Department of Agricultural Research and Education, Ministry of Agriculture-Cum-The Director General, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and other authorities. Now that the representation was made pursuant to the directions given by the High Court, we direct the appellants herein to dispose of the representation within two weeks from today in accordance with the statutory rules and communicate the said order to the respondent herein immediately after the disposal of the said representation.

p. 935, margin A

6

While disposing of the Writ Petition, the High Court has also directed the concerned authorities to consider the cases of the employees junior to the respondent herein as mentioned in paragraph 37 of the Writ Petition. The said direction, in our opinion, is not justified and uncalled for. We;therefore, set aside that direction and direct the appellant-authorities to consider the representation made by the respondent herein alone in accordance with law and as indicated above.

p. 935, margin C

7

The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

p. 935, margin E

8

No costs. D.G. Appeal disposed of.

p. 935, margin E