Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 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.
K.S. Hegde Vs. the Secretary, Department of
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Jun-30-2000
1. The applicant was promoted to the cadre of TES Group B, i.e. to a post of Sub-divisional Engineer, from the cadre of Junior Engineers (also called JTOs) as against 2/3rd quota earmarked for the JTOs who had passed only the Departmental Qualifying Examination (Qualifying Examination for short on the basis of his seniority. In the final seniority list of the TES Group-B officers, which was circulated by the first respondent i.e., the Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunication, Government of India dated 16.10.1997, based on the All India eligibility list of Junior Telecom Officers (JTOs), the applicant has been allotted the seniority No. 12957 with the deemed date of promotion of 18.11.1993. The extract from the final seniority list, where the name of the applicant so appears, is attached to the Annexure A2 of the OA, which is the forwarding letter communicating the final seniority list of the TES Group-B officers mentioned above.2. The applicant's grievance is that t...
Dr. Mukund Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Decided on: Jun-28-2000
1. The applicants 12 in number are Assistant Divisional Medical Officers of Eastern Railway (ADMO) posted in different Divisions of the Eastern Railway. They have prayed for the following reliefs : (i) For a direction to the respondents to determine the seniority of the applicants after taking into consideration their entire service including their initial ad-hoc period which was subsequently regularised through the Union Public Service Commission; (ii) The Respondents may be directed to give promotion to the applicants with the senior scale of Divisional Medical Officers retrospectively from the date (s) of their ad /hoc/temporary joining on the post of Assistant Medical Officer (Grade-II); and 2. The applicants were appointed as Assistant Medical Officer (Grade-II) after being selected through the process of written examination followed by oral test conducted by a selection committee consisting of three Heads of Department viz; Chief Medical Officer, Chief Personnel Officer and a Me...
Jeetmal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
1. In both of these cases, the controversy involved and relief claimed by the applicants being common, both these applications are disposed of by this common order.2. In both these cases, the contention of the applicants is that under the work order, the applicants were being utilised as Contractors, but in fact, they were rendering their services to the department in the capacity of workman and the employment of applicants on the basis of work order was only a pretext to avoid granting temporary status and regularisation of the applicants in the department. This contention of the applicants is repelled by the respondents by their detailed reply.In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it would be better to briefly narrate each of the cases. The reply of the respondents being common will be described accordingly.3. It is alleged by the applicant that he was initially appointed as a casual labourer (Jeep Driver) by the respondents vide order dated 24.12.89 on a fixed monthly wa...
Rajendra Kumar Pareek Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Jun-27-2000
1. The applicant has filed this O.A. with the prayer that the impugned order dated 20.6.86 (Annexure A/7) passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Railway, Jaipur, and order dated 31.10.86 (Annexure A/8) passed by the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Jaipur, be quashed with all consequential benefits in favour of the applicant.2. Notice of the O.A. was given to the respondents who have filed their reply stating therein that the O.A. of the applicant bears no merit and deserves to be dismissed.3. The case of the applicant is that while he was working as a Clerk, he proceeded to Bombay on duty on 2.2.1983. The duty pass was from 2.2.83 to 2.2.83. During this duty pass period, the applicant fell ill.He came back to his home town for treatment and contacted the doctor on 8.2.83. The applicant informed the authority concerned about his illness and remained ill from 8.2,83 to 5.4.85. During this period, he contacted the doctors including the Railway doctor,...
P.S. Bapat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jun-16-2000
1. We have heard Mr. Handa for the applicant and Ms. Sheth for the respondents.2. The applicant who had retired from the postal department as Group "A" officer is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to consider his case for re-fixing his pay by giving option under F.R. 22.3. This is the second round of litigation. The applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. 35/95 where he had brought out that he was earlier an officer of the PSS grade "B" and was empanelled for appointment for IPS Group "A". He was posted initially in Kerala but he had declined and was given an officiating appointment in IPS Group "A" in Kheda dist. w.e.f. May 1986 and subsequently was regularised in Group "A" cadre from 1.11.1986. There was some controversy about the period of three days from 26.7.86 to 28.7.86 where initially it was treated as break but subsequently was regularised by the department for the reason that the applicant had already been empanelled for Group "A" service and as such ...
R.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jun-16-2000
1. We have heard Mr. Dholare for the applicant and Ms. Sheth for the respondents.2. The applicant has challenged the order dated 8.3.2000, as at annexure A/4 issued by the Disciplinary Authority viz the Assistant Commissioner, dismissing him from service by invoking the powers available to the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules.3. The applicant was working as Head Clerk in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ahmcdabad region and he faced criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Special Judge, Session Court No. 3 Ahmedabad held him guilty of the criminal charge under Sub-section 13(1)(d) of PC Act and he has been awarded the sentence to undergo RI for 15 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500A and in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month vide the judgment dated 13.8.96. The department'issued the show case notice dated 11.2.2000 for imposing the penalty on conviction on a criminal charge under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 where the...
R.S. Khurana Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
1. Heard Mr. K.C. Bhatt for the applicant and Mr. B.N. Doctor for the respondent.2. The Postal department had notified for volunteers for the level of Postal Assistant in Postal Department by advertisement. Total number of vacancies available for direct recruitment quota was 30 and the department had proceeded on the basis that this would be distributed as follows: The applicant who belonged to the SC category had applied and had taken the test. According to him, his name was first in the merit list for the S.C. category whereas two posts were stated to be reserved for S.C.Before the appointment orders were issued the department took the view that there was excess representation of SC in the cadre and in terms of the Supreme Court directions it held that there could be no reservation for this category in respect of this particular recruitment.They have therefore not issued the appointment order to the applicant even though according to Mr. Bhatt the department had prepared lists of th...
Amaji Motiji Makwana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jun-14-2000
1. The applicant who was working as EDBPM, Shiholi Moti, BO under the Gandhinagar HO was put off duty by the order dated 14.8.91 by Sub-Divisional Inspector of Postal, Gandhinagar, w.e.f. 14.8.91. The said order of put off duty was subsequently confirmed by the Supdt. of Post Office, vide his order dated 1.2.92 and it was further pointed out that he would not be entitled to any allowances during the said period.These orders were passed under the Rule 9 (3) of the P&T, EDDA, (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Thereafter on dated 27.3.92, Supdt.of Post Office. Gandhinagar division passed the order under Rule 6 of the EDDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 terminating the services of the applicant with immediate effect. On applicant preferring the appeal against the said order, the Appellate Authority i.e. the CPMG, Ahmedabad set aside the order of termination dated 27.3.92 and reminded the case to the Appointing Authority to initiate the de novo proceedings against the applicant und...
S.N. Loomba, Income Tax Officer Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jun-05-2000
1. This O.A. has been filed by Sh. S.N. Loomba, ITO, Ward 11(4), Ludhiana. We need not reproduce all the facts in detail, but the relevant facts of the case are that the applicant, after joining the respondent department in the year 1966, was working as an Inspector when D.P.C. was held on 12.4.1989. He was recommended for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer and was so promoted vide orders dated 28.4.1989 on which post he joined on 30.6.1989. Applicant is aggrieved by order at Annexure P-1 vide which respondents have reverted him to the post of Inspector from the date from which he hands over the charge of his duties as Income Tax Officer, Group 'B' on reversion and his seniority was fixed between one Sh. B.L. Dhar (Seniority No. 110) and Ms. Bharti Sharma (Seniority No. 111), as on 1.9.1989. Applicant has challenged this order on the ground that his work has always been appreciated by his superiors and he was duly recommended by the DPC on being placed at Sr. No. 1 in the pan...
Ratti Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Jun-01-2000
1. Applicant Shri Ratti Ram who is a physically handicapped person is before this Tribunal for the third time. In the year 1972 while he was residing in Village Bhogpur-Simbalwala, Post Office Burma Papri, Teh.Nahan, Distt. Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, and was having land/chapar there, he had got his name registered with the employment exchange at Nahan. Said exchange sponsored his name for appointment to the post of clerk to the Post Master General, Punjab Circle, who in turn called for willingness of the applicant to work as clerk against various vacancies under jurisdiction of the PMG, through letter dated 3.10.1972, Annexure A-2. Applicant submitted his application alongwith requisite certificates which were received in the said, office on 20.10.1972 (Annexure A-3). PMG Ambala approved his name and earmarked him under DET Rohtak, vide letter dated 9.2.1973, Annexure A-4. He was called to be present before the DET on 9.3.73 alongwith all the certificates in original. He received lett...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›