Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for the following main reliefs: (i) Declare that the applicant is entitled to be regularized in service from 15.05.1982, the date of his initial appointment as Assistant Store keeper on casual basis and also entitled to get second financial upgradation benefits from 15.05.06 with all consequential benefits. (ii)Direct the respondents to regularize the service of the applicant from the date of his initial appointment as Assistant Store keeper on casual basis duly condoning the artificial breaks and also direct to grant the second financial upgradation benefits from 15.05.06 and further direct the respondents to grant the consequential arrears with 9% interest. (iii)In the alternative, direct the respondents to grant the second financial upgradation benefits under the ACP Scheme to the applicant with effect from 09.02.2007 and also to grant the consequential arrears of pay with 9% interest. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. As the issues involved in these two Applications filed by the same applicant are inter connected, both are being disposed of by a common order. 2. The applicant, a Stenographer Grade-III presently working as Typewriting Instructor in the Lakshadweep Administration is challenging implementation of Annexure A-1 order promoting him to the post of Stenographer Grade-II on regular basis. 3. The applicant joined service of the Agriculture Directorate, Kavaratti Lakshadweep Administration, as Stenographer Grade-III on 23.12.1988 (A-2). He was subsequently transferred to the post of Typewriting Instructor in androth Island w.e.f. 3.5.1996(A-3). While working so, in 2000, he was offered ad hoc promotion as Stenographer Gr.II which he declined(A5). Now, by the impugned order, he is promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II on regular basis. He submitted representation on 2.6.2009 which has not been disposed of so far. The applicant is also...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Mrs. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member The applicant is working as Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer Mail Carrier, Mayipadi, Kasaragode w.e.f. 11.5.1978 (A-1). According to him, he belongs to OBC community. The applicant is the seniormost OBC candidate waiting for promotion. While so, the examination for promotion to the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard 2009 was notified on 18.12.2009(A-3), a vacancy was earmarked for OBC. But the applicant was not considered because of the error in the Seniority list wherein he is shown as OC instead of OBC and one K.Ananda GDS, Kadambar who was much junior to him was promoted against the vacancy earmarked for OBC. Aggrieved, he has filed this O.A for a declaration that he belongs to OBC, to set aside A-9 promoting a junior against the OBC quota. The main grounds urged are that the caste of the applicant clearly shows the community of the applicant as Sadhu Chetty which falls in the OBC in the Central list of backward classes, a junior was selected and tha...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the charge memo dated 22.6.2009 and further prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant all retirement benefits as he retired from service on 30.4.2010. The bare facts which are necessary for a decision of the O.A. are that, while the applicant was working as Head Ticket Examiner at Shornur railway station of the Southern Railway, Palghat Dn. he was served with a suspension order on 6.6.2007 passed by the second respondent in the O.A., the Divisional Commercial Manager, Palghat Dn. Though the said suspension was revoked on 10.10.2007 the applicant was served with a memo of charges numbered as CON/J/V/524/V.V. Dated 22.6.209, a copy of which is produced and marked as Annexure A2 in the O.A. In pursuance to the receipt of Annexure A2 charge-memo, the applicant filed representation on 18.7.2009 explaining his case to the charge- memo. However, as the disciplinary proc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The applicant working as Helper-II under the Southern Railway at Kochuveli has filed this Original Application for a direction to the respondents for refund of the amount recovered as damages/penal rent from the salary of the applicant with 12% interest per annum. Further it is prayed that the recovery ordered by the respondents as damages/penal rent from the applicant is illegal and irregular. 2. The fact matrix of the O.A. are that, while the applicant was working as Technician Gr.I in the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7550(pre-revised scale) in the office of the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Trivandrum, was served with a penalty advice of removal from service with effect from 6.3.2008 as per advice bearing No. V/M.226/XIV/CandW/14(1)MM dated 6.3.2008, a copy of which order is marked and produced in the O.A. as Annexure A1. Against the said penalty advice, the applicant filed an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the selection of 4th respondent to the post of GDS Mail Packer at Aluva Head Post Office overlooking his claim. 2. The 1st respondent invited application for appointment to the post of GDS Mail Packer at Aluva HPO (A-1). The applicant submitted application in the prescribed proforma along with all required documents. He along with M/s P.C. Unnimon, K.B. Nidish, M.S. Jayasree and the 4th respondent were called for verification of documents and cycling test. He is challenging the consideration of the application of the 4th respondent and Shri P.C. Unnimon which should have been rejected on the ground that their applications were not accompanied with 2 conduct certificates from Gazetted Officers, which is mandatory. He stated that the other candidates Smt. M.S. Jayasree failed in the cycling test and that Shri K.B. Nidish was not interested in the appointment. Therefore, he alone should have been selected. H...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. By filing this O.A., the applicant mainly seeks a direction to the respondents to consider him for appointment as Mail Overseer, Kattapana, in preference to his juniors, including the 4th respondent. 2. The applicant joined the Postal Department as Extra Departmental Agent. He was promoted to Postman cadre on 12.02.1991. On completion of 16 years of service, he was given the higher grade under TBOP Scheme. While working as Postman, Kallar, he was given posting as Mail Overseer, Thodupuzha Sub Division, with effect from 01.10.2007. He had requested for a transfer as Mail Overseer, Kattapana. He was posted as Cash Overseer, Kattapana, vide Annexure A-1 transfer order dated 22.04.2009, which was styled as one under request. Overlooking his request for a posting as Mail Overseer, Shri S. Rajappan, his junior, was posted as Mail Overseer, Kattapana. As he had a few months left to retire, the applicant did not object to his transfer and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.09 passed by the Senior Personnel Officer,Southern Railway, Personnel Branch, Chennai, the applicant has filed this O.A. The applicant was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot under a scheme called 'Safety Related Retirement Scheme' as the applicant's father one S.Navabudeen retired from service while he was working as Loco Pilot (Passr) II under the 'Safety Related Retirement Scheme’ (hereinafter be referred to as the 'Scheme'). The said Scheme is introduced by the Railways on 2.1.2004 for giving employment to the wards of voluntarily retiring employees especially for Drivers who complete 33 years of service in the Railways. The applicant so applied for the post and was appointed as Assistant Loco Pilot and sent for departmental training and after completion of the training successfully, the applicant was allowed to join in SA Division, Chennai. While so, as per the stipulations and conditions c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The applicants in these two Original Applications have approached this Tribunal for a common direction to the respondents to convene the selection committee meeting and publish the select list of Kerala cadre of Indian Forest Service for the year 2008. Further it is commonly prayed that the retirement of the applicants prior to the convening of the selection committee meeting shall not stand in the way of their selection and appointment to the cadre of Indian Forest Service. 2. The facts of the case are also common and hence these Original Applications were heard together and disposed of by a common order. Both the applicants are appointed in the Kerala Forest Service as Forest Range Officer through the selection conducted by the Kerala Public Service Commission on 1.11.1980. Thereafter both the applicants were promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forests on 19.3.1996 and 1.4.1996 respectively. Both the applicants have completed 8 ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the order dated 13.11.2008, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A4 passed by the Senior Commercial Manager, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch, Chennai of the Southern Railways. The applicant prays that the said order may be quashed and to issue a declaration to the effect that the applicant is legally entitled to get himself reinstated in service with back wages. 2. The fact matrix which led to the filing of the O.A. are that, the applicant claims that he was working as a Commission Bearer at VRR/TPJ from 10.3.1976 to 6.3.85 and his services were terminated without serving a notice to him and in violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has also got a case that a similar claim put forward by one P.Viswanathan was considered by this Tribunal in O.A.No.916/2000 and that O.A. has been allowed by this Tribunal. On the basis of the said order the...
Tag this Judgment!