Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
P.R. Raman, Judicial Member 1. The applicant, a candidate selected for appointment to the post of Technician Signal Maintainer Gr.II is aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2010 issued by the third respondent produced as Annexure A-l . Annexure A-l is an order by which the case of the applicant was rejected as medically unfit by the Railway Authorities. In Annexure A-1, no reasons are stated. 2. The applicant is an M.Sc. in Physics and Bachelor of Education. He responded to a Notification Annexure A-2 issued by the Railway Recruitment Board, Southern Railway for appointment to the post of Technician Signal Maintainer Gr.ll. Annexure A-2 the post in question is Category No.121 and medical standard required for appointment to the post is " B-1". The applicant having responded to the Notification, participated in the selection process and qualified in the same and was placed in the rank list as per Notification dated 22.10.2008 published by the Railway Recruitment Board, Thiruvananthapuram in i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. The applicant is a Peon under suspension with the respondent No.2, Director of Cashewnut and Cocoa Development, Kochi. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the charges of wilful insubordination and physical intimidation on 02.04.2008. As the disciplinary authority himself was a prime witness, an ad hoc disciplinary authority was appointed on 13.05.2008. Upon his transfer, the present ad hoc disciplinary authority was appointed on 3/4.12.2008. He issued the charge sheet on 02.01.2009 against the applicant setting out 9 articles of charges, out of which only 2 were pertaining to the incidents of 02.04.2008. As the ad hoc disciplinary authority was specifically appointed for the disciplinary proceedings pertaining to the incidents on 02.04.2008, the applicant challenged the said charge memo in O.A. No. 783/2009 which was allowed by this Tribunal on 18.06.2010. A fresh harge memo dated 10.01.2011 as at Annexure A-1 was issued. The a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member 1. The legal issue involved in this OA pertains to parity in matters of fixation pay as on 01-01-2006 in the pay scale of Assistants in the Central Administrative Tribunal of Ernakulam Bench. The prayer of the applicants is as under:- “(a) Declare that the applicants are entitled to the benefit of fitment as granted to Shri T.Srinivasa, Assistant of the Bangalore Bench of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal in terms of A7 and direct the respondents to fix the applicant's pay accordingly; (b) Declare that the applicants are entitled to be granted the benefit of Anenxures.A1,A2, A4 and A5 with effect from 15.9.2006 and to be thus granted the scale of pay of Rs. 6500-10500 and an option to come over to the revised pay band plus GP with effect from that date, as has been granted to the Assistant/Stenographers Grade C of the Central Secretariat Service/Central Secretariat Stenographers Service; (c) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. Having common facts and issues, these OAs were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants in these OAs who were members of the Kerala State Police Service, being eligible were considered for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) Kerala cadre, for the years 2008-A and 2009. They were included in the select list prepared by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). The Central Government appointed them to the IPS Kerala cadre on probation vide orders dated 28.12.2011 and 18.01.2012. They were discharging the duties and responsibilities of the posts to which they were appointed by the Government of Kerala. Their pay and allowances were fixed as envisaged in the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1964. They were granted uniform allowance also. While so, the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, issued a corrigendum notification dated 06.03.2012 superseding the notifications dated 28.12.2011 an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant in this Original Application for vandalizing a surveillance camera and for attempting to remove it. On completion of the inquiry proceedings the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty of dismissal from service on the applicant which was confirmed in appeal. Aggrieved, this Original Application has been filed for the following reliefs:- "(i) to set aside Annexure A VI order of penalty and Annexure A VIII order of the Appellate Authority by which Annexure A VII appeal submitted by the applicant was rejected. (ii) to hold that the Articles of Charges against the applicant are not proved. (iii) to declare that the the inquiry held against the applicant was vitiated by procedural irregularity, bias and dictation and the Inquiry Report is vitiated by non-application of mind. (iv) to order that the applicant is entitled to reinstatement to service with all consequential benefits." 2. The...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. The applicants are candidates for selection to the post of Police Constables under the Lakshadweep Police Department. As per Annexure A1 notification dated 31.12.2010 the minimum educational qualification was plus-II and the last date for submission of application was 1.2.2011. A corrigendum dated 18.1.2011 (Annexure A2) stated that holders of NCC certificates and sports certificates would be given bonus marks of 1% or 2% and that attested copies of relevant certificates should be submitted on or before 1.2.2011. A short list containing 408 candidates was issued on 1.3.2011. A select list of 80 candidates and a waiting list of 16 candidates were issued on 28.3.2011. The 1st applicant is wait listed as No. 2. The 2nd and 3rd applicants are at serial Nos. 10 and 11 respectively in the waiting list. The respondents 3 to 12 are candidates who secured less marks in the qualifying examination than the applicants herein. Two of the party respondents ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member In order to ensure that professionally qualified, trained and meritorious officials head the key Post Offices, a separate cadre of Postmasters comprising of Senior Postmaster, Postmaster Grade-III, Postmaster Grade-II and Postmaster Grade-I, was introduced as per order dated 22.11.2010. The Recruitment Rules, 2011 in this regard was framed on 08.09.2010. Applications were invited from the Postal Assistants with 5 years regular service as on 01.01.2011 for Postmaster Grade-I. The applicant had applied and was given admit card dated 28.05.2011. However, on the eve of the examination, the same was cancelled in Kerala Circle alone citing pendency of a special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A for the following reliefs: (i) Direct the respondents to conduct the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the cadre of Postmaster Grade-I notified as per Annexure A-4 at the earliest; (ii)D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs : (i) To issue necessary order or direction to the 3rd respondent for appointing the applicant as Social Security Assistant against the available non-filled sanctioned vacancy meant for OBCs in the direct recruitment quota on the ground that the 11th rank holder Simil K.S not joined for duty under the 3rd respondent as he already got appointed in the Gramin Bank, Panamaram in Wynadu District and the next rank holder to fill the resultant vacancy is the applicant and as such the applicant is eligible and entitled to get the appointment; (ii) To issue any other appropriate order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case; and (iii) To allow costs to this proceedings. 2. The applicant had participated in the written examination and skilled test for appointment to the post of Social Security Assistant (SSA) in the Kerala region under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member 1. The applicant is presently working as Assistant Operator in the refrigeration section in the office of respondent No. 2. The post is one of highly skilled posts. The pre revised scale attached to the above post was Rs 4000 - 6000. consequent upon the implementation of the sixth pay commission recommendations, the aforesaid pay scale had been revised to Rs. 5200 -20,200/- and great pay of Rs.2400/. This pay scale was made available to the applicant w.e.f. 01-01-2006. 2. By a notification dated 28-07-2009 (Annexure A-2), the posts of highly skilled had been bifurcated in the ratio of 1:1 designated as highly skilled grade II and grade I and the pay scale remaining the same, the great pay was rescheduled as Rs 2,400/- for Grade II and Rs 2800 for Grade I. Annexure A-2 refers. By an order dated 22-11-2010, 50% of the posts of Assistant Operators were granted the benefit of PB I + G.P. of Rs. 2,800/-. Vide order dated 27-11-2010, the pay of the applicant...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member 1. The applicant in this OA is a preventive officer of customs posted at the Cochin Region. By Annexure A-1 order dated 04 - 10 -2010 on the ground of "contemplated disciplinary proceedings", he was placed under suspension and said suspension continues till date. Till today, no charge sheet has been framed against him, either in any Departmental Enquiry or in any criminal court. The grievance of the applicant in this OA is that despite a specific provision introduced in the rule relating to suspension vide Department of Personnel and Training O.M. No. 11012/4/2003/Estt (A) dated 07-01-2004, that if the officer has been under suspension for one year without any charges being filed in a court of law or no charge-memo has been issued in a departmental enquiry, he shall ordinarily be reinstated in service, the applicant has been continued to be kept under suspension beyond the said one year. Hence, this OA seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To call for th...
Tag this Judgment!