Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Madras Court March 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
S. Subramanian Vs. Union of India Rep., by Its Secretary and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
G. Shanthappa, Member, (J) 1. The above OA is filed by the applicant under Sec.19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the legality and propriety of the order No.C/2-19/2005-06 dated 26.4.2010 passed by the third respondent and further relief of direction to the respondents to pay interest to the applicant for the belated payment of retirement service benefits for the periods from 1.4.2006 till the interest amount has been realized by the applicant. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The admitted facts of the case from either side are that the applicant while working as Mail Overseer, Avadi Camp, Sub-Division was served with the Memorandum of Charges dated 15.3.2006. The applicant submitted his representation dated 22.3.2006 and denied the charges leveled against him. On 29.3.2006, the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices (SSPO) had issued an order and dropped the Memorandum of Charges dated 15.3.2006 without prejudice to any further d...
R. Selvaraju Executive Engineer(C), Trichy Central Division, Central P ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
Hon'ble Mr. R. Satapathy, Administrative Member This application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief: “a. to direct the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned orders, issued under Lr.No.F.No.12/20/2010/EE(C)/CR Cell dated 26th October, 2010 (Annexure A.1) and Lr. No.File No.12/20/2010/EE(C) CR Cell dated 11.7.2011 (Annexure 20); b. to diredt the respondents to give promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) on ad-hoc basis/in-situ due to non-communication of adverse remarks which are below the bench-mark prescribed for promotion in time by ignoring the same while considering the case of an employee for promotion as done in the case of Chitra Srinivasan Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Finance and Others(Annexure A.21) and also considering the case laws viz., ‘Dev Dutt Vs. UOI and Others -2008-INSC 885-12th May 2008(2008 AIR 2513, 2008(8) SCR 174, 2008(8) SCR 725) and ‘Abhijit Ghosh Dastidar ...
M. Muthalif, Deputy General Manager(Engg.), National Building Construc ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-30-2012
The Hon'ble Mr. R. Satapathy, Administrative Member Aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2011 of the first respondent whereby the applicant has been transferred from Chennai to New Delhi, he has filed the OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for quashing of the said transfer order and also prays for a direction not to transfer him even on administrative ground till his retirement. 2. While admitting the OA on 13.10.2011, this Tribunal granted an interim stay of the operation and execution of the impugned transfer order dated 9.5.2011. 3. The main grounds on which the applicant challenges the transfer order are (i) that he is 57 years old and had only 3 years to retire on superannuation; (ii) that he is taking treatment for eye ailment in Shankara Netharalaya in Chennai;(iii) that his third son is studying plus two course which will be over in April, 2012. 4. We have considered the arguments advanced by the respective sides and perused the pleadings and the material...
S. Selvam and Others Vs. Union of India Represented by the Secretary t ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-29-2012
Hon’ble Mr. R. Satapathy, Member (A) This OA's have been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 seeking the following relief : “i. to call for the records relating to the impugned select list published by the second respondent dated 13.04.2010 bearing ref: No.A32016/DRandDM/Estt/A2/2008, in as much as it relates to appointment of meritorious sports persons and quash the selection / appointment of the respondents 3 and 4 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 appoint the applicant as Village Administrative Officer, with effect from 13.04.2010, with all backwages, monetary and service benefits ; ii. Award costs” 2. Since the relief in all the 4 OAs are same and respondents are also the same we propose to pass a common order for all the four OAs. 3. The second respondent (i.e.) Government of Puducherry have issued a notification dated 01.10.2009 wherein it has been mentioned that Recruitment will be for the 42...
T.R.Mani Vs. Union of India Rep. by the Secretary to Govt. Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Hon'ble Mrs. O.P. Sosamma, Administrative Member The applicant in this O.A. is aggrieved by the order of the third respondent in letter No.CRME/EST/2010/1673 dated 21.12.2010 reducing his pension from Rs.18180/- to 16735/- The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal on the same grievance in O.A.No.989/2009. This Tribunal in its order dated 26.4.2010 passed the following order: “In the result, the impugned letter CRME/EST/2009/1086 dated 5.10.2009 (Annexure A-11) issued by the third respondent is set aside and thus the O.A. is allowed and the respondents are at liberty for re fixation of the pay and pension of the applicant after giving sufficient opportunity and hearing of the applicant and with this observation the O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.” 2. Pursuant to the orders of this Tribunal in O.A.No.989/2009 dated 26.4.2010 the third respondent has passed the present order No.CRME/EST/2010/1673 dated 21.12.2010 which is being challenged by the applicant in th...
Dharba Satyanarayanamoorthy and Others Vs. Union of India Rep. by Govt ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
Hon'ble Mrs. O.P. Sosamma, Administrative Member The facts of the case, grounds raised and the relief sought for in OA Nos. 13 and 1144/2011 are same and therefore these two OAs are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants in these OAs are aggrieved by the impugned tentative seniority list published by the second respondent in O.M.No.6-1/PW/CE/EC7/2010-11 dated 13.12.2010 and the orders of the first respondent in letter No.766/US(W)/PA/2010 dated 6.12.2010 directing the second respondent to draw Tentative inter-se seniority list of Junior Engineers possessing degree in Civil Engineering as on 29.11.2003 who have completed three years of service after completion of degree for filling up of the post of Assistant Engineer under degree quota on regular basis. 3. The impugned orders indicate that these orders are issued in accordance with the 'principles enunciated' by the Apex Court in their orders in C.A.No.8468/2003. According to the applicants the letter...
C.K. Mathivannan Vs. Union of India Rep. by the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-28-2012
G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member. The above O.A is filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenging the memorandum dated 05.11.2011, issued by the 3rd respondent and communicated vide letter dated 08.11.2011. The applicant has prayed for quashing of the same. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. It is an admitted fact from either side that the applicant is a BSNL employee and is presently working as Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE for short). The 3rd respondent is an employee of Department of Telecommunications (DOT for short) and presently he is on deputation to BSNL and he has not been absorbed in the BSNL till date. While on deputation, the 3rd respondent functioning as Sr. General Manager, ( NWP andD)- CFA issued the memorandum of charges under rule 36 of BSNL CDA Rules, 2006. The applicant submitted his reply on 26.12.2011, stating that the said BSNL CDA Rules, 2006 have not been published in the Gazette of India as required under la...
E. Palani Vs. the Chairman Central Board of Secondary Education and An ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-22-2012
Hon'ble Mrs.O.P.Sosamma, Administrative Member The applicant in this Transferred Application is challenging the orders of the first respondent in his proceedings No.CBSE/Vig/F.112/2004/ dated 31.12.2004 confirming the order of 'removal from service' issued by the second respondent in his proceedings No.CBSE/Vig/F.112/2004/419 dated 28.5.2004 2. Disciplinary action was taken against the applicant while he was working as Daftry in the Regional Office of Central Board of Secondary Education, Chennai. In the charge memo issued to him in proceedings No.CBSE/Vig./F.112/2004/317 dated 21.1.2004 by the second respondent the following article of charge was framed : Article 1 “That the said Shri E.Palani, while functioning as Daftry in the Regional Office, CBSE, Madras (Chennai) during the year 1994, had failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and had committed grave misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Board's employee in as much as when the rechecking of an...
Ms.V.M. Chandry Vs. the Director Directorate of Health and Family Welf ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-21-2012
Hon'ble Mrs. O.P. Sosamma, Administrative Member The applicant in this O.A. is challenging the selection to the post of Pharmacist (Allopathy) published by the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare in their letter No.12020/4/2008/E4/DHFWS dated 2.3.2009. 2. The applicant is one of the candidates who applied for the post but was not selected. The selection to the post was made pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Department in August, 2007. The educational qualifications prescribed for the post as per the advertisement are pass in SSLC or equivalent, Diploma in Pharmacy or certificate obtained after having undergone Compounder's training in a recognised institute. The contention of the applicant is that she had secured 56.17marks in S.S.L.C. Examination held during the year 1992 and passed Diploma in Pharmacy course with aggregate of 58.7% marks in the year 1997 and since she possesses the prescribed educational qualification, she should have been selected and failure to selec...
A. Natarajan, Retd. Senior Passenger Guard Vs. Union of India Represen ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Mar-20-2012
Hon’ble Mr. G. Shanthappa Judicial Member. This application is filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs: “To call for the records related to the impugned order No. M/P3/500/I and II/AN/June 2001 dated 16.11.2010 made by the 3rd respondent and quash the same and further to direct the respondents to reckon with the substitute service rendered from 26.07.1965 to 25.12.1972 by the applicant as qualifying service for calculating the retirement benefits with all the consequential benefits and to make further order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper and thus render justice.” 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. The admitted facts from either side are the applicant was initially engaged on 26.07.1965 and he continued upto 19.02.1972 in different substitute capacities as Mazdoor, Mali, Lascar, Store Lascar, and Special Mate in the Engineering Department in Chennai Divi...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »