Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court September 1998 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.
Bheem Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-29-1998
1. The common order of reference is only under the signature of Vice Chairman (J), though the cases were heard by a Division Bench consisting of Vice Chairman (J) and Member (A). The order of reference says, "Since there is a difference of opinion on the said point, (i.e., the point of jurisdiction), the matter is referred to the Hon'ble Chairman for nominating the third Member." However, in the main order written by the learned Vice Chairman, the question of jurisdiction was not examined. In this context the order of reference mentions that the cases "were heard assuming that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter and pass orders." Without agreeing or disagreeing with the Vice-Chairman learned Administrative Member observed: "The dispute in the batch of cases before us in essence relates to granting the applicants retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act/ reinstatement in service/granting temporary status to them in terms of the scheme framed by the dep...
Shri Rancho Gianchand Badlani, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
(1) Whether conferment of higher scale of pay as per Second Cadre Review (order dated 18.4.91) for upgraded posts is automatic to the incumbent of the post or the incumbent can claim the benefits from the date his/her appointment is approved by the competent authority after due process of selection? (2) Can respondents' action in prescribing new mode of selection, by order dated 9.9.94/26.9.94, for upgraded post of Additional Director General (ADG for short in grade Rs. 7300-7600) and Deputy Director Generals (DDGs for short in grade Rs. 5900-6700) be declared legally untenable? (3) Whether the respondents have faultered in law by following sealed cover procedure for the purpose of considering applicant's claim for promotion to upgraded post of DDG (in SAG of Rs. 5900-6700)? 3. Applicant was promoted as DDG (functional) in the selection grade of Rs. 4500-5700 on 2.11.87. Respondent No 1 vide its office order dated 18.4.91 revised the pay scale of the post of DDG from Rs. 4500-5700 to ...
Shri Gulab Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-28-1998
1. Applicant, an UDC under Central Ordinance Depot under Respondent No.3, is aggrieved by A-1 order dated 5.5.92 imposing on him the penalty of removal from service. He is also aggrieved by respondents inaction in not disposing of his A-2 appeal dated 15.7.92 against A-1 order.Consequently, he seeks issuance of directions to respondents to quash disciplinary proceedings leading to A-1 order.2. Background facts, necessary for appreciation of the legal issues, are as hereunder: The applicant was served with a major penalty charge-sheet on 17.9.90 alleging that he was absent from duty with effect from 3.6.87 to 29.1.88. An enquiry was conducted under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The inquiry officer (IO for short) in his report submitted on 30.6.91 found the applicant responsible for both the charges. Besides being absent from duty, the IO held him guilty of disobeying respondents order for not obtaining medical certificate in violation of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965. The app...
C. Puttaswamy and ors. Vs. Executive Engineer, Bcd-i, Cpwd
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Sep-25-1998
1. This OA has been filed seeking the relief for treating the applicants as regular Govt. employees after regularising their services. The applicants also seek quashing of the notification whereby fresh tenders have been invited by the respondent Department for the services already being rendered by the applicants. According to the applicants, they have been working as drivers in CPWD under the respondent department starting on various dates ranging from 15.11.91 to 1.12.95. They have been performing their duties satisfactorily. In spite of the fact that the applicants have been working as drivers, they have been denied the status of being civil servants in spite of their performing the particular service for the department. What is more, the respondents have also chosen to reinvite quotations for the very same services as are being rendered by the applicants. The applicants have therefore, also sought the quashing of the fresh notification inviting for fresh tenders besides seeking r...
R.D. Parmar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
1. The first applicant is an ex-casual labourer of the Railways and the second applicant is association of Railway employees which claims to represent the cases of the casual labourers/substitutes, who had worked under the D.R.M. Bhavnagar. They have challenged the move of the Bhavnagar Division of the Railway Administration to make direct recruitment for filling up 132 vacancies in Group D level which according to the Railways is the back-log in respect of the reservation quota earmarked for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes as per their Notice dated 18.9.97 (Annexure A-1). The applicants have challenged this move on the ground that it is incumbent on the part of the Railway Administration to absorb the ex-casual labourers who are still awaiting a posting before making any direct recruitment. As an interim direction the Tribunal had ordered the respondents not to make appointments pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.9.1997 as per the Notice dated 18.9.97--Annexure A-1.2. We ha...
Shri A.K. Singhal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-1998
1. Common grounds and identical issues are involved in these Original Applications (in short 'OAs') and, therefore, they are disposed of together in this consolidated order.2. The reliefs claimed in both the OAs are somewhat common. We are extracting hereunder the reliefs claimed in OA 266/94 : (i) quash the seniority lists bearing No. 3/3/86-ADM-I (B) dated 25.8.86 (Annex. A-4) No. 3/5/91-Adm. I(CEA) dated 26.9.91 (Annexure-A-7) and the Seniority List bearing No. 3/1/93-Adm. I (CEA) dated 4.2.1993 (Annexure-A-10), in so far as it pertains to the applicants and respondents 3 to 9 and restore his inter-se seniority in line with their original seniority assigned to him by virtue of his position in merit at the time of his initial appointment batch i.e. restore the position as is reflected by the Seniority List No. 3/85/ADM. I (B) dated Nil May, 1985(Annexure-A3). (ii) declare that the applicant continued to maintain his seniority which he originally enjoyed vis-a-vis respondents 3 to 9 ...
Bharatiya Rail Vidyut Karmachari Vs. Shri M. Ravindra, Chairman,
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Sep-22-1998
1. Petitioners named above have filed this Contempt Petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act), praying for initiating proceedings of Contempt of Court against the respondents for non-compliance of the order of Ihe Tribunal passed in Original Applications Nos. 460/91, 1 15/ 94 and 116/94 on 9.5.96.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records.3. It is pertinent to note at the very outset that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide No.PB/6/2/98-R dated 10.9.98 has circulated a copy of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 17.8.1998 in Writ Petition No. 34841 /1997 and Contempt Case No. 1054/1998 (Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Anantha Reddy and 7 Ors.) wherein a Division Bench of the Hon'bie High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has held as follows:-- "(1) that in view of the decision rendered by the...
G. Kannan Vs. the Commanding Officer and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 6.3.1996 (Annexure-A5) passed by the Disciplinary Authority holding that the charge framed against him had been proved and imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service as well as the order of the Appellate Authority (Annexure-A10) dated 27.1.1998 confirming the order of the Disciplinary Authority.2. The charge framed against the applicant was to the effect that he, while functioning as Cook at Station Workshop, EME, Bangalore-7 absented from duty without prior sanction for a total period of 54 days from 3rd September, 1995 to 26th October, 1995 even though he had been warned on several occasions verbally by the Administrative Officer and also in writing vide the letter dated 29.9.1995 and he is thus guilty of gross misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority appointed a Board of Inquiry consisting of an Inquiring Authority and two members by order dated 17th November, 1995. The board of Inquiry commenced the proceedings on 5th D...
Tulshibhai Khodabhai and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Sep-16-1998
1. This is an application under Section 19 of Central Administrative Tribunal Act (for short, CAT Act), praying therein to quash and set aside the result of the written test, as at Annexure A/I and Annexure A/2, and also, of the oral test, conducted by the respondent No. 2 and 3, allegedly adopting unfair practices, in order to favour the candidates belonging to their communities, for filling up the post of Ticket Collectors in Group 'C', in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1050, by selection for promotion, from Group 'D' candidates of the Commercial and the Traffic department of the Bhavnagar Railway Division. Further, prayer is made to restrain the respondentNo. 3 from participating in any other selection test and for special cost.2. It is the case of the applicants that the respondent No. 2, Mr. G.L.Meena, Sr. Personal Officer, Western Railway, Bhavnagar, and respondent No. 3, Mr. Meena, Divisional Commercial Manager Western Railway, Bhavnagar, conducted written test for selection from amo...
P. Balaiah Naidu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-15-1998
1. Heard Mr. G. V. Sekhar Babu, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. N.R. Devaraj, learned standing Counsel for the respondents.2. There are private respondents impleaded as R-5 to R-19 in this OA.As seen from the Deputy Registrar's office note dated 23.9.97, notice were served on R-l to R-4, R-7 and R-16 to R-19. Notice not returned served in respect of R-5, R-l3 and R-15. Notice sent to R-6, R-8 to R-12 and R-14 have been returned with no clear endorsement of the postal authorities there on. Hence the learned counsel for the applicant was directed to issue private notices to the respondents and file proof of the same within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice. In the office note of the Deputy Registrar dated 9.12.97, it is noted that none of the parties were present. The learned counsel for the applicant has not so far taken steps to issue private notice to R-6, R-8 to R-12 since notice sent through the postal authorities have not been returned with clear endorsement...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »