Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court April 2000 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.
H.A. Vaishnav and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-27-2000
1. Mr. B.P. Tanna, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants in all matters and Mr. B.N. Doctor, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.All these 4 O.As raise common question of law and are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. The applicants of all these O.As are Central Government employees who have retired between 1.1.93 and 31.12.95. Their main grievance pertains to non extension of recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission to their cases and they have prayed that they should be given the same benefit in respect of the liberalized pay scale, liberalized gratuity, higher commutation benefit, pension on the basis of the fitment in the revised scales corresponding to their pre revised scales at the time of the retirement etc. Mr. Tanna has submitted that while the petitioners have a claim for the liberalized pay scales etc. from an earlier date, they will be satisfied if a direction is given to extend the scales to them from a date prior to their retirement and their ...
Gulshan Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
1. The applicant has claimed the following reliefs in the OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:- (i) To respondents No. 1 and 2 to take back the applicant as J.P.O. in the cadre post in the DGS & D in which post the applicant has the lien. (ii) To respondents 3 and 4 to relieve the applicant to enable him to revert back to his lien post in the DGS & D. (iii) To quash the wrongful and retrospective allotment cancellation order dated 30.8.96 and allow the applicant to continue in the Central Govt. General pool accommodation, and (iv) To pass any other order as deemed fit and necessary to protect the legitimate rights of the applicant including his right to continue in the accommodation on payment of normal licence fee." 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that after following the policy decision taken by the Government of India to decentralise part of the Central Govt. purchase functions carried on by Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Directorate Ge...
M.L. Rajaram Naik and ors. Vs. the Additional Director and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
1. The Division Bench of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal has referred the following points which arise in O.A. Nos. 241 and 870 of 1999 to the Full Bench: (i) Whether filling up of the upgraded posts of Senior Pharmacists in the higher scale on seniority cum fitness basis from those holding the posts of Pharmacists with a lower scale amounts to promotion calling for application of reservation in favour of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes? (ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of these cases the appointments of the applicants to the upgraded posts of Senior Pharmacists could be said to be illegal when the appointments were made and whether the impugned orders cancelling those appointments can be sustained? 2. The facts giving rise to the above reference which are not in dispute are as hereunder: On a proposal for creating promotional avenues to Pharmacists in the scale of Rs. 1350-2200 working in Central Government Health Services, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfa...
Ram Lal Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Decided on: Apr-26-2000
1. Since both the aforesaid OAs arc analogus in nature, they were heard together for decision by a common order.2. The applicants, being 68 in number, have sought for relief by way ordirection upon the official respondents to re-regularise the roster duty of only eight hours for their future duties and also to pay Over Time Allowance for the works already done for more than eight hours duty per day as per the prescribed service rules.3. The applicants were Motor Vehicle Drivers and Khalasis working under the respondents in the Dhanbad Division of the Eastern Railway.According to their case in the OAs, the working hours of their roster duty had been earlier decided @ 8 hrs. per day for six days per week leaving one day as rest day. It is, however, alleged that the respondents at different times arbitrarily passed orders fixing roster duly of more than eight hours ranging from 9 hours to 14 hours per day which the applicants performed with the hope that they would be paid Over Time Allo...
Niranjan Kumar Vasu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
1. Applicant, Niranjan Kumar Vasu, has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for as under:-- (i) the impugned letter dated 24.7.1991 (Annexure A/1) may be quashed and set aside and the respondents Nos. 1 to 4 be allocated Rajasthan cadre to the applicant right from inspection of this appointment and he may be given all consequential benefits and if need be, the notification dated 15-4.1987 qua the applicant may be set aside; (ii) that if for granting above relief cadre allocation made in favour of respondent No. 5 is required to be set aside, the same may be set aside; (iii) the letter dated 31.5.1985 (Annexure A/2A) may be declared as un-constitutional and ultra vires to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently, the respondents may be directed to consider the cadre allocation of applicant bereft of letter dated 31.5.1985 and allocate him Rajasthan State." 2. Applicant's case is that he was selected to the In...
N.C. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
1. Applicant, Shri N.C. Sharma, Upper Division Clerk (UDC, in short) in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Asansol being aggrieved by the order dated 6.4.1990 in respect of regularisation of his service in the cadre of UDC and rejection of the representation dated 17.4.1990 vide letter dated 30.3.1992 had filed this application for regularisation of his past adhoc service in the cadre of UDC with effect from 3.7.1982 and for assignment of appropriate seniority of the applicant in the grade of UDC above the position of Shri R.M. Prasad, UDC and Shri M.P. Mahato, UDC who were junior to the applicant as LDC and promoted as UDCs later on a permanent basis before the applicant was declared permanent. The case of the applicant, in short, is that he was appointed as LDC in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Asansol on 11.4.1968. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of UDC in the said office with effect from 3.7.82 in a vacancy occurred when Shri M. N...
Shantadevi M. Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Apr-25-2000
1. We have heard Mr. K.C. Bhatt for the applicant and Ms. Sheth for the respondents and have also gone through the materials on record.2. The applicant has challenged the order dated 11.10.99 as at Annexure A/5 and also another communication issued on 28.10.99 as at Annexure A/9 which states that allotment of the agency, Mahila Pradhan Kshatriya Bachat Yojna (M.P.K.B.Y.) is irregular and also seeks to recover the commission paid to her. The respondents have taken a preliminary objection that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the present O.A as the holder of agency does not occupy a civil post nor is it a service matter.3. Mr. K.C. Bhatt for the applicant contends that this Tribunal has jurisdiction and refers in this connection to a decision of this Tribunal in the case of Shankerlal v. U.O.I. in O.A. 157 of 91 decided on 16.9.94. He also refers to the decision of the Principal Bench in the case of I. C. v. Govt. of NCT, New Delhi in O.A 1948 of 98 rendered on 10.2.99 whe...
Constable Kafil Ahmed Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents rejecting his request for inclusion of his name in the Promotion List 'A' dated 4.1.1996, 22.3.1995 and 13.5.1991.2. The applicant, who had been enrolled as Constable in Delhi Police had been proceeded against departmentally. The penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service temporarily for one year entailing proportionate reduction in his pay was imposed on him by order dated 23.5.1989, which was upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 6.3.1990. The applicant had filed O.A.1524/90, which was disposed of by order dated 31.8.1994 (Annexure A-9). While this O.A. was pending, the applicant had moved Miscellaneous Application which was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.3.1991. In this order, the respondents were directed to depute the applicant for training in the Lower School Course (LSC) provisionally, subject to the outcome of O.A.I 524/90. In Tribunal's order dated 31.8.1994, it was directed a...
Kameshwar Jha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Decided on: Apr-19-2000
1. This transfer Application has been registered on receipt of the Title Appeal No. 29/93 from the Court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Darbhanga. The Title Appeal No. 29/93 was preferred by the Plaintiff applicant against the judgment dated 29.1.77 and decree dated 4.2.77 passed by the II Additional Munsif, Darbhanga, in Title Suit No. 234/93 /11/75 dismissing the prayer of the plaintiff-Applicant for declaration of his dismissal order as void, illegal and mala fide and for his reinstatement in the service.2. The case has a chequred career. The plaintiff-applicant, Kameshwar Jha, was appointed as a Postal Clerk in Darbhanga Division on 28.12.1954. A criminal case was lodged against him for booking parcel of contraband articles on 6.7.59, and he was put under suspension. In this criminal case, a final form was submitted, but the suspension order passed against him was not revoked. Subsequently, an another criminal case was lodged against him with the allegation of submi...
S.A. Alam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Decided on: Apr-18-2000
1. The applicant who retired from railway service on 30.11.1993, when he was holding the post of P.O./RCT/Patna (full form of designation not given), is challenging the initiation of departmental inquiry against him vide memo dated 29.11.1993, relating to awards of contracts by him during 1988 to 1991, when he was senior DCS, Katihar.2. It is stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the impugned charge sheet/memo was sought to be served on him on 30.11.1993, which was the day of his retirement, but he refused to accept it, and it was published on the notice board. Now one preliminary issue has to be decided first.3. Shri M.M.P. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the charge sheet cannot be treated as having been served while the applicant was still in service. He stated that a retiring government servant normally hands over his charge finally at noon of the day of his retirement, and the after-noon is not considered to be a part of t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »