Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicant is challenging the appointment of the 4th respondent as GDS Branch Postmaster, Moolankavu BPO having been obtained by producing fabricated document relating to qualification and marks obtained in the SSLC examination 2. The applicant is one of the aspirant to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster, Moolankavu Branch Post Office. He passed SSLC examination with 449 marks out of 600. According to him, he satisfied the eligibility conditions prescribed in the notification. The documents were verified on 25.2.2010. There were only four candidates who attended the interview/verification. Since the result was not communicated to him, he submitted representation (A-4). He also submitted an application under the Right to Information Act for getting the details of the person selected which was answered by A-6. Aggrieved by A-6 he preferred an appeal before the Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Calicut who is t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicant, a retired Lower Division Clerk, has filed this Application aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in the disbursement of of revised retiral benefits as per the VI CPC recommendations. 2. The applicant a Lower Division Clerk, while working under the 4th respondent, retired from service on superannuation on 30.6.2008. He was paid the retiral benefits in the pre-revised scale. Though the orders of implementation of VI CPC recommendations were issued only on 2.9.2008, the pay revision was effective from 1.1.2006. The grievance of the applicant is that though his pay was revised w.e.f. 1.1.2006 and 40% of the arrears of pay and allowances were disbursed to him, the respondents have not revised the pension and other retiral benefits. He submitted representation on 18.4.2009 (A-3) and a separate representation for payment of composite transfer grant on 12.5.2009. However, he received Annexure A-4 letter dated 29.5.2009 s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant praying for the following main reliefs : (i) Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A1 and quash the same; (ii)Declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for an appointment on compassionate ground as per the Scheme which was in force as on the date of demise of the applicant's father, i.e., 17.09.05 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant accordingly and direct further to grant all consequential benefits thereof forthwith; (iii)Award costs of and incidental to this application; 2. To state briefly the facts of the case, the applicant's father died in harness on 17.09.2005 after putting in 11 years of regular service in the BSNL. The applicant was minor on the date of demise of his father. The applicant's mother submitted a representation for appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground. She was informed that an application could b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicants are working as Constables (except the 1st applicant who is a Head Constable) in the Police Department of the U.T. of Lakshadweep. Their grievance is that though there are 13 vacancies of Assistant Sub Inspector (Wireless Operator) which arose during the period 2003 to 2009 when the unamended rules were in force, they are not being considered for promotion to the post of as per Recruitment Rules in force. According to the applicants, vacancies in all the 12 posts have arisen prior to the amendment to the Recruitment Rules notified on 17.12.2008(Annexure A-8). All the applicants are Matriculates having 24 to 34 years of service. According to them, the post of ASI (Wireless) and ASI (Radio Technicians) are promotion posts from among Head Constables and Constables who are Matriculates or equivalent, with English, Science and Mathematics, within the age limit of 20 and 30 years. However, by A-2 amendment, the upper age limit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE DR K.B.SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The applicant who is aged 82 has approached this Tribunal for redressal of his apparently long pending grievance. The long pendency of the grievance is also one of the defences of the respondents. The factual matrix is as follows: The applicant would claim that he was appointed as Office Boy in the Railway Workshop on 10.4.1945. Apparently thereafter he was promoted as a Labourer in April 1948. He would claim that his normal date of superannuation would be 30.4.1987. There was an announcement by the labour union to conduct a day's token strike in the month of August 1949. The applicant being an active member was apparently arrested on 8.3.1949. In this connection our attention is drawn to Annexure A-6 dated 12.3.1949. It relate to the suspension of the applicant for the reason that Disc No.842 Anandan who is the applicant herein, was arrested by the Sub Inspector of Police, Golden Rock on 8.3.1949 under section 151 Cr. P.C. read with 2(1)(a) of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicants are presently working as Temporary Status Mazdoors under the 2nd respondent. According to them, they were originally engaged as part time Casual Mazdoors in the year 1983 and 1985 respectively (A-1). They were appointed as Full Time Casual Mazdoors on 21.2.2000 (A2) and were subsequently appointed as temporary status Mazdoor as per the Scheme. On the eve of creation of BSNL on 1.10.2000, the Department issued orders to regularise all Casual Mazdoors on 29.9.2003 (A-3). But it was not acted upon by the 2nd respondent. Instead of regularising their service, they were appointed as Full time temporary Status Casual Mazdoors w.e.f. 21.2.2001 (A-6). The respondents regularised all others as per A-3, A-4 and A-8 ignoring the applicants. Later when their full time appointments were cancelled, they challenged the action of the respondents through O.A. Nos. 913/2001 and 914/2001. The Tribunal allowed the Oas which was upheld by t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 5th March, 2009 and the Appellate Order dated 24.11.2009 the applicant has filed this Original Application praying that the above orders may be quashed and the applicant may be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits. 2. The backdrop of the case is as follows. While the applicant was working as Section Officer, redesignated as Assistant Audit Officer, he was served with a memo dated 21.03.2007 directing the applicant to file his explanation within seven days of the receipt of the Memo why he has physically manhandled Sri VK Praveen, a Group D staff of AandE Office on 30.11.2006 at 6.15 P.M. For the above memo, the applicant had filed his representation on 27th March, 2007. Subsequently another memo dated 16.4.2007 has been issued to the applicant alleging that the applicant committed serious misconduct in violation of the provisions contained in Rule 3(1)(ii) and (iii) and Rule ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. Being identical, both these O.As were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Both the applicants seek reconsideration of their claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. O.A. No. 482/2010 : Applicant's father who was working as T.M. under GMT, Thiruvalla, died while in service on 15.05.2006. The terminal benefits of the deceased employee amounting to Rs. 2,55,407 were adjusted by the department towards a departmental loan taken by him. A meagre amount of Rs. 2960/- as family pension is not sufficient to meet the basic needs of the family members. The application dated 06.03.2007 submitted by the applicant seeking compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondents after evaluating his case in accordance with the policy guidelines dated 27.06.2007. Under the said policy guidelines, the applicant scored 34 net points, which is less than the eligibility point of 55. Hence his request for appointmen...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The applicants 28 in Nos. presently working as Telecom Technical Assistants (TTAs) in the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), who were the employees of Department of Telecommunications of Government of India. The applicants have filed the OA for a direction to the respondents to grant OTBP/BCR promotions as they have completed 16/26 years of service. The applicants have also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant higher pay scales on fixing their pay scales on the basis of grant of OTBP/BCR promotions with effect from granting of such benefits. 2. Few facts which are necessary for consideration of the application are as follows:- While the applicants were working in the Erstwhile Department of Telecommunications, Government of India, by the letter dated 17.12.1983 issued by Director General of Posts and Telegraph Department recommended a time bound promotion to the employees of the erstwhile Posts and Telegraph Departme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.06.10. transferring her from the Regional Passport Office, Ernakulam, to the Regional Passport Office, Bangalore, the applicant has filed this O.A. with a prayer to set it aside. 2. The applicant joined service in the year 1977 in the Regional Passport Office, Ernakulam. She was posted at Kozhikode, Trichy and lastly at Ernakulam where she is working as Superintendent. She is to retire from service on superannuation on 30.04.2012. She is a severely handicapped person with 50% permanent disability as per certificate dated 12.11.2001. She cannot travel without escort. Her husband died 18 months ago. Her father-in-law is 90 year old and totally bed ridden. He suffered a cardiac attack recently. She had submitted a representation to the first respondent requesting to retain her at Cochin considering her hardships. As the applicant is suffering at present from more than 50% physical handicap, her case fo...
Tag this Judgment!