Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. Applicant in this OA is an IPS officer belonging to the Kerala Cadre. He has filed this OA aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents to pay special allowance of 15% of the basic pay from 3.1.96 to 17.10.96 when he was posted as Commandant of State Rapid Action Force (SRAF). Through this OA he has sought relief inter-alia to quash Annexure A3 & A4 and to declare that he is entitled to draw the special allowance of 15% of his basic pay from 3.1.96 to 17.10.96 and for a direction to the respondents to pay the above allowance within a specified period.As per A1 Government order dated 25.8.95 of the first respondent, a special force in Kerala Police known as State Rapid Action Force (referred to as SRAF hereafter) was constituted, As per Clause 8 of A1 Government order, incentive to be given to the personnel of SRAF are as follows: ''Incentives : All police personnel (Police constable to Commandant) will be paid on successful completion of the conversion training. (ii)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. Applicant seeks to quash A1 and A2 and to direct the respondents to restore the monetary benefits denied to him on account of A1 and A2.2. Applicant is aggrieved by A1 and A2 orders whereby he was awarded the penalty of reduction of pay by five stages in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 for a period of five years with effect from 1.4.95 with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction of pay and that on the expiry of the said period the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.3. Applicant was proceeded against under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for short) on seven charges. A3 is the copy of the memorandum of charges. He says that he submitted a written statement of defence denying the charges levelled against him as per A4. Notice of inquiry was given to him. He did not take part in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer found him gui...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
(ii) To declare that Clauses 'a', 'b' and 'c' of Rule '2' of Annexure A2, the Department of Post (Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 1992 are arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust and therefore unconstitutional; (iii) Direct the respondents to consider the applicants and other Extra Departmental Agents for promotion as Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants in a just and fair manner by appropriate procedure in accordance with law. (iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the Tribunal may deem fit to grant; and "(i) declare that the limitation in Clause (b) of Rule 2 of Annexure A1 that only E.D. Agents securing not less than 10% marks in comparison with the marks secured by the last open market candidate of the previous selection will be eligible for being considered for recruitment as Postal Assistant is unjust, arbitrary and discriminatory and hence void as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; (ii) declare that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. Basically two issue fall for determination in this original application. These are as hereunder:-- (i) Can the responsible respondent like Secretary/Department of Posts and CPMG of the same department under the Union of India legally act contrary to the instructions/orders issued by them as at Annexures A-1 to A-5? (ii) Are the respondents at liberty to remain silent/inactive for long on the orders so made or even modify those orders resulting in denial of benefits arising out of the said orders? 2. A proper appreciation of the aforesaid two legal issue would require brief description of the background facts. These are as follows:-- Applicants, Asstt. Postmaster/Postal Asstts. are aggrieved by respondents actions in denying grant of two advance increments as well as saving bank allowance @ Rs. 60 p.m. as per respondents communications in their letter Nos. 31-29/86-EP-II dated 04.09.86 and Staff/B-8(1)/SBCO 1.1.91 (Annexures 1 and 3). The Chief Postmaster General/New Delhi (CPMG for...
Tag this Judgment!