9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 271X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idual employees, or even a group of them. If a rational and reasonable balance is struck in the modality adopted for restructuring, the judiciary would loathe interfere with such process, primarily because such restructuring; including the manner in which the restructuring is to be done; is a matter purely in the realm of administration. That notwithstanding, as rightly noted by the learned Tribunal, no situation of injustice, even to any particular class of employees, was made out. The challenge to the impugned restructuring and the order of the Tribunal, therefore, fails. W.P. dismissed. - WP (C). No. 35233 of 2007 (Z) - - - Dated:- 9-1-2015 - Thottathil B Radhakrishnan And K Harilal,JJ. For the Appellant : Sri R Sreeraj, Adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department in the context of massive induction of information technology. It was envisaged that consequent to extensive use of information technology, some existing functions of LDCs and UDCs will be done away with and LDCs and UDCs will be required to do Data Entry work on computers. It was in this context that two new designations of Tax Assistant and Sr.Tax Assistant have been created (Tax Assistant ₹ 4000-6000 and Sr. Tax Assistant ₹ 5000-8000) and the posts of UDCs, Head Clerks/Assistant and DEO grade-A, B and C merged with the posts of Tax Assistant and Sr. Tax Assistant. In so far as DEOs are concerned, DEOs Gr.A, B and C were promoted in their cadre in the year 2000-2001 as per existing Recruitment Rules and were merg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions issued by DOMS dated 04-06-2001 and 19-07-2001 are fair and equitable in terms of their applicability to various cadres and no injustice has been done to the petitioners. The representations of the above petitioners are disposed off accordingly, as being without merit. 4. The challenge by the petitioner before the Tribunal failed, as the Tribunal was of the view that the policy was itself not under challenge and no specific injustice has been pointed out. While the learned counsel for the petitioner points out the rejoinder filed before the Tribunal and says that relief No.2 in the original application before the Tribunal contained the specific claim for relief against the policy decision, we see that the said submissions are insuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
