Railways' catering sees major overhaul to ensure good quality food (See 'TOG News')Govt sets up mechanism to ease IGST refund claims for exporters (See 'TOG News')BRICS nations to share best practices in airport infrastructure management (See 'TOG News')GST e-way bill - Govt appoints Grievance Redressal Officers to process complaints (See 'GST News')DTAA - Payments made overseas to purchase designs on outright basis, cannot be treated as royalty u/s 9(1), if recepient is not taxable in India: ITAT (See 'TOG Latest')I-T - Failure to establish urgent nature of business which requires accepting loans in cash attracts penalty u/s 271D: ITAT SB (See 'TOG Latest')GST - Failure to update part B of e-way bill covering goods valued above Rs 50000/- warrants levy of penalty: HC (See 'TOG Latest')Customs - No CVD calculated u/s 4 of CEA 1944 is leviable on ASDL Modems imported by BSNL being an institutional consumer: CESTAT (See 'TOG Latest')Indian economy would grow at 7.5% in 2019: IMFPFRDA invites Expression of Interest for Actuarial Valuation of Atal Pension YojanaWB's economy strategically located, can drive others in vicinity: NK Singh (See 'TOG News')DTAA - Interest paid to overseas branches is not taxable in India, being payments made to self & so not attracting withholding tax liability: ITAT (See 'TOG Latest')I-T - Expenses excluded from export turnover have to be excluded from total turnover as well to determine profit from export business: HC (See 'TOG Latest')Central Excise - Provisions of Rule 25 of CER 2002 & Sec 2(d) of CEA 1944 are applicable on excisable goods only & not on imported goods: CESTAT (See 'TOG Latest')GST - Payment of penalty through GST portal is acceptable & so Department cannot insist upon payment in cash: HC (See 'TOG Latest')
Tax on Go
Budget 2015
Click the banner to download Documents
HOME       GST     INDIRECT TAX     INCOME TAX     DTAA     TP     MIXED BAG     LIBRARY    

TOG NEWS

SC refuses to pass interim order on plea for reservation in Govt jobs
By TOG News Service
Jul 11, 2018

TOG News Service, NEW DELHI, JULY 11, 2018: THE Supreme Court today refused to pass an interim order against its 2006 verdict which dealt with the application of the 'creamy layer' for reservations to SC and ST categories in government job promotions. A bench comprising Chief Justice Mr Dipak Misra and Justices Mr A M Khanwilkar and Mr D Y Chandrachud said a seven-judge Constitution bench is needed to consider the 2006 verdict M Nagraj verdict.

Attorney General Mr K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, said the matter should be heard urgently by a seven-judge Constitution bench as lakhs of jobs in Railways and services are stuck due to confusion over various judicial pronouncements. The bench said one Constitution bench is already seized of various matters and the issue can only be taken up in the first week of August. On November 15 last year, the Apex court had held that a five-judge Constitution bench would examine the limited issue of whether the 2006 verdict delivered in M Nagaraj and other versus Union of India was required to be re-looked at or not.

The M Nagaraj verdict had said the creamy layer concept cannot be applied to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for promotions in government jobs like two earlier verdicts,, the Indra Sawhney and others versus Union of India (popularly called Mandal Commission verdict) in 1992 and the E V Chinnaiah versus State of Andhra Pradesh verdict in 2005, which dealt with the issue of creamy layer in the Other Backward Classes category.

However, on June 5, in a major relief to the Centre, the Apex Court allowed it to go ahead with reservations in promotion for employees belonging to the SC and ST category in 'accordance with law'. The top court took into account the Centre's submissions that the entire process of promotions had come to a "standstill" due to the orders passed by various high courts and the apex court had also ordered for "status quo" in a similar matter in 2015.

A vacation bench of Justices Mr Adarsh Kumar Goel and Mr Ashok Bhushan had observed that the Centre was not 'debarred' from making promotions in accordance with law in the matter. The government had submitted that there were separate verdicts by the high courts of Delhi, Bombay and Punjab and Haryana on the issue of reservation in promotion to SC & ST employees and that the Apex Court had also passed different orders on appeals filed against those judgement.