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

C.S. BALAN AND ORS. versus CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM AND ORS.

Decided
26 April 1996
Judges listed
G.N. RAY, B.L. HANSARIA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 65 · 1996 INSC 587

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.

Unnumbered paragraph

Leave granted.

p. 65, margin E

Unnumbered paragraph

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant's grievance is that before the General Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, the appellants sought for a declaration that they were entitled to be promoted w.e.f. December, 1990 to the post of Junior Telecom Officer because vacancies in the quota, in which they were entitled to be promoted, were available. It, however, appears from the impugned order that the question of the appellants' entitlement to get promotion has not been gone into, but the application has been disposed of by noting the concession of the respondent that the appellants would be given due seniority. Since the claim for promotion is also required to be considered, we allow this appeal and remit the matter to the Tribunal for consideration of the claim of the appellants to get promotion from earlier date as sought to be agitated in the application presented before the Tribunal. In the facts of the case. it is directed that such consideration be made by the Tribunal after hearing the parties within four months from the date of communication of this order. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to cost. G.N. Appeal disposed of.

pp. 65–66, margin F