Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court February 1999 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.
Agam Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-26-1999
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against wrong fixation of pay and for the relief of arrears of pay with interest after due restoration of salary at the rate which was already being paid to the petitioners at the time of arbitrary deduction started. The applicant has sought for the following reliefs : (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to pay the entire amount recovered from the pay sheet of the petitioner from 15.10.1985 to January, 1988 as consequence of fixing pay of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 1900/- from the higher fixation to pay Rs. 2250/- as back as 1988 with interest. (b) To issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of writ, as this Hon'ble Court may deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.2. In the O.A., the applicant stated that he was promoted to ex-cadre post of Law Assistant in grade Rs. 550-750 w.e.f. 16.12.1972 in which...
Mrs. B. Prema Jayadev Vs. the Regional Provident Fund
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Feb-25-1999
1. In this O. A. the applicant is challenging the order passed by the Respondent ('R' for short) No. 1 as per Annexure A-3 dated 29.6.1998 under which the applicant was reverted from the post of Enforcement Officer/Assistant Accounts Officer ('ED/AAO' for short) to the post of Section Officer.2. Brief facts of the case as stated in the application are that the applicant joined the service of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as LDC after due selection at Bangalore in December 1967. On 15.9.1973 she was promoted as UDC after she had passed departmental examination. Her work and conduct have always been exemplary. On 24.9.1982 she was promoted as Head Clerk/Supervisor. Her name figures at SI No. 120 in the seniority list of Head Clerks for the year 1996 which is at Annexure A-1. The next promotion for that cadre is EO/AAO. Due to the fact that seniority list was not finalised and on account of certain administrative difficulties the Department did not promote the applicant and others...
Daya Shanker and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-24-1999
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the alleged wrong fixation of pay of the applicants on their re-employment. In the O.A., the applicants sought for a number of reliefs as detailed in paras 8(A) to 8(F) of the O.A.During hearing, applicants' counsel stated that he was pressing for relief under para 8(A) only, which is reproduced below: "Respondent No. 3 may be directed to fix the pay of the applicants in accordance with the provisions of Order 4 and5 of the C.C.S. (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986 and the other extant provisions referred to in para 4 and allow annual increments after fixing the pay on the date of re-employment." 2. The applicants in the O.A. stated that having retired from Army before completion of 65 years of age, they were called for test and interview for re-employment by the respondent No. 3 on 8.3.1984 and even though they were selected on 1.4.1984, appointments were made on 23.5.19...
Mata Deen Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-22-1999
1. The applicant has filed O. A. No. 911/96 and O. A. No. 1335/ 96 for the same relief of compassionate appointment, hence both the Original Applications are decided together.These are the applications under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for issue of a writ/order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding the respondents to consider the candidature of the applicant's son on compassionate ground in class-Ill category and after proper screening and other formalities the case may be referred by respondent No. 2 to Headquarters for further approval of the competent authority in a time bound direction, 2. There is no dispute between the parties in respect of the fact that the applicant was working as Fitter Grade-I under Chief Wagon Supdt.Central Railway, Jhansi and he was medically decategorised on account of poor vision. The applicant submitted the application for compassionate appointment of his son Brij Kumar which was declined by criptic order dat...
V.V. Hanumantha Rao and ors. Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
1. Heard Mr. K.S.R. Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel for the applicant, Mr.V. Rajeswara Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the official respondents and Mr. M.P. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the private respondents.2. There are 40 applicants in this OA. They were initially appointed as Assistant Store Keepers in the pre-reviscd scale of pay of Rs. 110-240/950-1200. Subsequently, they were promoted as Store Keepers in the scale of pay of Rs. 1200-2040. A seniority list was circulated by the letter No. SE/2076 dated 11.3.92 (Annexure 3 at Page 24 to the OA) in accordance with the Naval Headquarter's letter No. SE/2076, dated7.7.93 (Annexure-4 at page 25 to the OA). As per that list, all the applicants were shown seniors to R-4 to R-23. Thereafter, another gradation list of 1994 was circulated in 1994 wherein also all the 40 applicants were shown as seniors to R-4 to R-23. It is new submitted that the Naval Headquarters, New Delhi circulated a seniority list bearing No. SE/2076, dated 27.1...
Jagdish Prasad Bishan Vs. Asst. Supdt. of Post Offices and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
1. In this OA filed under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant makes a prayer to quash the impugned notice dated 3.7.1997 for terminating the services of the applicant.The applicant also makes a prayer to allow him to continue on the post with all consequential benefits.2. The facts of the case in brief as stated by the applicant are that the applicant is a SC candidate and out of 17 E.D. posts in Agra Central Sub-Division, one post was filled up from SC category in Agra Division. It is also stated that the applicant was appointed on 26.12.1996 as E.D. Runner but the respondents issued notice dated 3.7.1997 to the applicant to terminate the services of the applicant so as to appoint Sri Yuvraj Singh. It is stated that the applicant is a regularly selected candidate after sponsoring the name from the Employment Exchange and he was found most suitable. Thereafter, he was appointed vide order dated 26.12.1996. Since then he is working with full sati...
Deo Kumar Pathak Vs. Sub Divisional Inspector of Post
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
1. In this OA the prayer of the applicant is to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.1997 by respondent No. 1 and the order dated 23.12.1997 passed by respondent No. 2.2. It appears that in pursuance of the order dated 23.12.1997 issued by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 has issued an order dated 26.12.1997 terminating the services of the applicant under Rule 6 of the ED Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964.3. In brief the facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that the post of E.D.M.C. Piyarauta, district Ballia fell vacant due to retirement of one Sri Kapil Deo Singh on 31.12.1996. In order to fill up that post, respondent No. 1 requisitioned the names of suitable candidates for appointment from Employment Exchange. The Employment Exchange in pursuance of the same sponsored six names and the applicant was found suitable out of those six to be appointed on the post of E.D.M.C. Piyarauta district Ballia. It is stated that after the selection, the applica...
K. Pandaiah and ors. Vs. the Central Provident Fund
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
1. None on either side. Head Mr. Siva for Mr. Rama Mohan Rao today i.e.18.2.99.2. There are 16 Applicants in thisOA. All the Applicants were recruited directly as LDCs except Applicants 2 and 3 who were promoted as LDCs against the Dpeartmental Promotion Quota of 35% reserved for departmental staff. The Applicants 2 and 3 were holding the posts of Electrician and Peon respectively before their promotion as LDC. The Applicant No. 15 was not recruited through the Employment Exchange but appointed directly on compassionate grounds. All the other applicants except those mentioned above were recruited as LDCs on being sponsored by the employment exchange and having come out successful in the selection. As per the Employees Provident Fund Organisation "Upper Division Clerks Recruitment Rules, 1992, the promotions to the post of UDC are to be effected to the extent of 50% by promotion on the basis of the seniority subject to rejection of unfit and the rest of the 50% also by promotion on the...
Sri Johan Tigga Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-18-1999
1. This is an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 filed by the applicant being aggrieved by the respondent's Notice No. 754-E/93/Pram-TCI-I/E-2B-2, dated 24.2.94 promoting junior Shri G.K. Meena (ST)--respondent No. 4 as Telecommunication Inspector-I Grade Rs. 2000-3200 as a result of restructuring of the cadre of Telecommunication Inspectors. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:- (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents No, 1 to 3 to fix the lien of the applicant against a permanent post in any of the Divisions of Northern Railway so that his service record may be maintained by that Division for determination of seniority. (b) To promote the applicant as Telecommunication Inspector Grade-II Rs. 1600-2600 and Grade-I Rs. 2000-3200 with effect from the date his junior Shri G.L. Meena was promoted according to modified selection procedure as applied to the case of his junior Shri Ganpat L...
Chandrasekhar Puttur Vs. the Telecom District Manager and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Feb-17-1999
1. The applicant who was working as DE Phones, Mangalore was transferred to Karwar Telecom Circle and he was relieved at Mangalore on 15.4.1986. He was posted to SDOT. Sirsi. By a memorandum dated 12.8.1987 an article of charge was served on the applicant. The charge framed against the applicant was that he did not report for duty at Sirsi and was continuously on leave from 15.4.1986 to 20.11.1986, that he has remained unauthorisedly absent with effect from 21.11.1986 and has also failed to reply to the official communications addressed to him on 8.6.1987 and 24.3.1987. It is also stated that he had not submitted any leave application to the competent authority. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the inquiry and the Inquiry Officer without examining any witnesses or getting the documents properly introduced in the inquiry came to the conclusion that the charge had not been proved. The Disciplinary Authority however, differed from the Inquiry Officer's finding and by order dated ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »