.....premises from 19.12.2006 to 22.12.2006, on 12.01.2007, on 17.04.2007 and also on 01.06.2007. as the explanations submitted by him were not satisfactory, the disciplinary authority issued charge sheet vide annexure a-10 memo dated 20.08.2007. on completion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was endorsed to the applicant by memo dated 01.07.2008. thereafter, annexure a-1 order imposing the above said penalty was issued.3. the applicant submitted that the entire proceedings initiated against him in terms of annexure a-10 charge memo are in complete violation of the statutory provisions contained in article 14 of the ccs (cca) rules, 1965. there was no evidence at all laid on behalf of the disciplinary authority and no documents were placed in the manner known to law. annexure a-1 order is ab-initio void and without jurisdiction as the charge memo was issued by an authority in the junior administrative grade and the penalty was imposed by an authority higher in rank. there is absolutely no misconduct on the part of the applicant. the charges said to have been proved by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority do not constitute a misconduct falling within the ambit.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....of 66.7% quota for promotion when no one was promoted as against filling up of the posts available under 33.3% quota for direct recruitment. sub section 1 of section 21 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 reads as under : "21. limitation.- (1) a tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months." 4. the delay of more than 14 years is hopelessly too long to be condoned. the application (unsigned) dated 28.01.09 from the applicant to the respondents, in our view, does not mitigate the long delay in filing the o.a. we do not find any merit in the contentions of the applicant to condone the delay of more more than 14 years. the o.a is hopelessly.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....be relied upon for the purpose of overlooking her claim for promotion and that her performance after the 'warning' had improved and was found satisfactory and other grounds had not been considered by this tribunal. therefore, the order in o.a. no. 415/2009 dated 08.07.2010 suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record and is liable to be reviewed.3. the respondents submitted that the contentions raised in o.a. no. 415/2009 are reiterated by the applicant in this r.a.4. we have heard learned counsel for the parties.5. the operative potion of the order in o.a. no. 415/2009 is reproduced as under :"7. we have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. the applicant was given sufficient opportunities to rebut the allegations made against her and she had availed them also. the explanation given by the applicant was not found satisfactory and therefore the adverse remarks entered in the acr was not expunged. so long as those entries have not been expunged, it will have its consequence. we also have seen that the adverse entries made in her acr are based on facts. further, we do not find any arbitrariness or illegality in the aforesaid letter/memoranda as alleged by the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....2nd acp.4. in the instant oa the applicant has questioned the wrong fixation of pay at rs 2910/- instead of rs 2970/- as on 01-01-1996 (which was in fact originally fixed but later on reduced by the respondents) and prayed for the following relief(s):-(a) to direct the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant at rs 2970/- in the scale of pay of rs 2610 - 3540 w.e.f. 01-01-1996 with all attendant increments w.e.f. 1st january of succeeding years;(b) to direct the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant w.e.f. 01-01-2006 under the vi central pay commission at higher stage by taking note of basic pay at rs 2970/- as on 01-01-1996 and disburse the arrears of pay.5. respondents have contested the oa. first they have raised the issue of limitation and relied upon the decision of the apex court in the case of union of india vs tarsem singh (2008) 8 scc 648. according to them the initial pay fixation at rs 2970/- was due to oversight in calculation but the same was later rectified and the pay fixed at rs 2910/- w.e.f. 01-01-1996 and endorsed at page 18 of the service book as per the audit observation of the internal audit conducted at kochi.6. the applicant has.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....committee which met on a number of occasions. 5. counsel for the applicant argued that the respondents had not taken into consideration the fact that applicant has a visually challenged brother. counsel also submitted that comparative figures have not been given by the respondents. 6. counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the applicant was considered in the proper perspective and because of limited number of vacancies coupled with the fact that more deserving cases were available, the applicant could not be given compassionate appointment. 7. arguments were heard and documents perused. the apex court in a number of cases have discussed the issue as to the compassionate appointment has to its exception to the normal rules of recruitment. the apex court has also cautioned that compassionate appointment should be strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in the scheme. in a latest judgment in bhawani prasad sonkar v. union of india - c.a.no.5101/2005 dt.11.3.2011, the apex court held as under: "15. now, it is well settled that compassionate employment is given solely on humanitarian grounds with the sole object to provide immediate relief.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....up as the lead case.3. the details of each case have been given by the applicant succinctly in ground (a) of each o.a. accordingly, as a part of the facts of the case, these are reproduced as hereunder:o.a.1074/20104. the applicant was initially engaged as casual labour on 28.4.1969. he acquired temporary status after acquiring 4 months continues service on 28.8.1969. temporary status was granted to him only w.e.f. 1.1.1981 though he acquired temporary status as on 28.8.1969 as provided in rule 2001 of irem. he was absorbed in regular service as gangman on 15.10.1983. therefore, half of the period of casual service from 28.8.1969 to 14.10.1983 has to be taken as qualifying service for calculating the pension and pensionary benefits. but in annexure a-6 pension payment order, the period reckoned as qualifying service for pension is only from the date of absorption of the applicant as gangman in the regular establishment on 15.10.1983 till the date of his retirement on 31.7.2008 and half of the period from 1.1.1981 to 14.10.1983. half of the period from 24.8.1969 to 1.1.1981 is not treated as qualifying service. it is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable and it violates the.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....2002. secretary, i and b informed that it is in the interest of companies to expedite completion of installation as early as possible, in view of fact that the license fee shall be payable from 29th december, 2001 even if they failed to bring their set up.” there was no such stipulation, we may notice, in the license. it, however, appears that the said offer made by the first respondent was not accepted. another meeting was held on 29.08.2001 wherein it was suggested by mibthat the petitioners and other bidders should use transmission infrastructure of prasar bharti for co‐locating their sites as a result whereof, the licensees were not required to have separate interim setups. the petitioner although commenced broadcasting in indore, it did not do so for hyderabad, lucknow and orissa. the consortium of fm broadcasters, however, agreed to co‐locate facilities in bombay, calcutta, chennai and delhi which were metropolitan towns. yet again another meeting was held on 21.12.2001 wherein the mib insisted upon payment of the remainder/balance of the license fee for the first year and they were to be considered having been granted “deemed operational.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....in other nearby places under the existing rules and regulations and accordingly the posted to the places, again as reflected in the statement. in fact, all applicants have preferred certain place of choice which are also indicated in the statement against their names. oa no.name of applicantpresently workingposted aschoice preferred305/2011t. surendrangdssv tirur east bazargdsmd alathiyurgdsbmp cheriyamun dam*306/2011smt. m.p. karthikagdssv tirurgdsmd niramaruthurgdsmc puthiyakadapuram gdsmp thirunavaya*307/2011t.v. jayarajangdssv kuttippuramgdsmd tolavannurgdsbpm cheriyamunda, gdsbpm* olakkara* gdsmp tirunavaya359/2011smt. k.a. rajalekshmigdssv kondottypogdsmd olamathilbpm elangoor* gdsbmp angadipuram360/2011smt. p. pushpagdssv arecode mdggdsmd chemrakkatturbpm kadambode gdsmp edavanna* gdsbpm kadambode* availability of vacancy confirmed by the respondents. 4. the respondents have no doubt contested the o.a. but have not refuted the fact that the applicants have applied for certain preferred choice station and vacancies do exist therein. their contention also included that in some places, the rate of trca is not the same as the applicants are getting at present. 5. in so far.....
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the esi corporation and the same has been done with a view to favour the employer as is evident according to the esi corporation from the following facts, viz. (i) final order was reopened mentioning that the employer had met the applicant on 19.5.94 whereas no such remarks was recorded by him when the file came to him on three occasions, i.e. on 19.5.94, 25.5.94 and 27.5.95. there was also no evidence available to show that the representative of the employer appeared before him on 19.5.1994. if it was otherwise, the applicant could have considered the case before passing final order on 27.5.1994 when the draft was put up before him. his explanation that it was an inadvertent omission was not convincing.(ii) his action of reducing the contribution without making any effort to reconcile the difference is by ignoring the interests of the corporation.(iii)the proposal to cancel the 45-a order was put up on 14.6.94 to the regional director , approved by the regional director on the same date, the employer was heard on 15.6.1994 and the proposal to reduce the contribution was also put up to the regional director on 15.6.1994, the regional director approved the same on the same date......
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT.....the payments made by the respondent have been accounted for. 12. the respondent has signed on each and every page of the said agreement dated 30.10.2008. the terms contained in the said agreement therefore, are not in dispute. in terms of the said agreement also the respondent was to pay the subscription fees regularly the amount mentioned therein. 13. we therefore, are of the opinion that the petitioner must be held to have established its case as has been prayed for passing an ex-parte decree. however, we direct that the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the dates on which they fell due till the date of actual payment. there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT