Chief Justice of India Justice Uday Umesh Lalit,
Judge with a difference, my experience
Rohit Kumar Parmar [1]
It is rare that a private individual as litigant is able to wish and pay respects to the new Chief Justice of India, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, based on records of Court order/s, which benefitted him, alongwith several others.
The author was an official against whom, government of India, continued to appeal, despite losing at the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.
These cases pending since at least 2006 (SLP 12481/2006), were finalized by a bench comprising of Justices Adarsh Kishore Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit as reflected in the order (available at the link) and also explained below:
The case related to ACRs for years 2003-04 and 2005-06, was decided on 31.01.2017 after wading through several courts, not finding time to hear it.
Relevant snapshots of SLP 32839 of 2011 in Union of India vs Rohit Kumar Parmar, decided after five years on 31.01.2017 follow
During the hearing learned government Counsel/s failed to mislead the Hon’ble Supreme Court on facts. Barely two sentences of an argument by the Respondent-in-Person (present author), were taken notice by Hon’ble Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, and put government on the defensive, whose lament was that I don’t have the file, please postpone the matter.
Earlier at the passover stage, after the request for adjournment was not agreed to, learned government Counsel/s had also stated the non-availability of relevant files and were directed that the matter would be heard today and they may make photocopies from the court files, if required.
A further submission by the Respondent-in-Person (present author), that learned government Counsel/s can read from his file was agreed to by the Hon’ble Court and the same was handed over to them. The order recorded in the case highlighted above, shows the learned government Counsel/s in poor light.
The background to the case is a posting on Central Deputation in the Ministry of Defence, an otherwise controversial Department, where two Joint Secretaries (hailing from the same school, same city, belonging to the same (but different) state, from the two elite services, having the same first name, given in the CAT order), chose to record below benchmark ACR (for years 2003-04 and 2005-06, were then not called APARs) for not toeing the line, which was endorsed by an Additional Secretary in a total of seven words. Statutory appeal adjudicated by a subsequent Defence Secretary was summarily rejected, inviting the following observation by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
There were other observations on the manner of recording of the ACRs. The full case, which is widely cited is available at the link
[1] Author has in posts on his website (https://rohitkparmar.wixsite.com/site), twitter (https://twitter.com/rohitkparmar?s=09), facebook (https://www.facebook.com/rohit.parmar.5268750/), linkedin (https://www.linkedin.com/in/rohit-kumar-parmar-841b4724) been writing on varied topics and can be reached at rohitkparmar@yahoo.com.
Comments