Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court August 2000 Judgments

Subhash Chand Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ330CAT

1. In this application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the applicant seeks following reliefs: "(i) downgradation of the remarks in the A.P.A.Rs of the applicant for the year 1996-97 (inclusive of both periods) may be declared as illegal and directions may be issued to the respondents to completely ignore the downgradation of such remarks and to treat the applicant as "Outstanding" or "Very Good" in the A.P.A.Rs for the year 1996-97; (ii) the official respondents may be directed to give future promotion to the applicant considering him in the category of "Outstanding" or "Very Good". (iii) the action of the respondent No. 4 in interfering in the A.P.A.Rs of the applicant may be declared illegal. (iv) the respondents may be directed to reconvene the meeting of the Screening Committee for appointment to Indian Forest Service and while reconvening such Screening Committee, the vacancies of each year may kindly be directed to be redetermined separately and after...

L. Narahari Vs. the Controller of Defence

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. The applicant was promoted to the post of Selection Grade Auditor (SGA) with effect from 2.7.1979 in the pay scale of Rs. 425-15-560-EB-20-640. At the time when the applicant was so promoted, the post of SGA was a functional post. Therefore, in terms of the precisions of the erstwhile FR 22-C, now FR 22(1) (a) (1), the pay of the applicant in the post of SGA was fixed taking into account his basic pay in the ordinary grade of Auditor as on 1.7.1979, which was Rs. 464/-, allowing him an increment in the ordinary grade thereon and thereafter fixing his pay in the SGA grade with effect from 2.7.1979 corresponding to the next higher stage available in the scale of pay for the SOA grade which was Rs. 425- 15-560-EB-20-640, Thus, his basic pay came to be fixed in SGA grade in the wake of his promotion to the post with effect from 2.7.1979 at Rs. 485/-. Subsequently, the scale of pay of the SGA came to be revised with effect from 1.1.1980 to Rs. 425-15-500-560-20-700 and the post was conv...

Tikam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

1. In this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant Tikam Chand has prayed for quashing order dated 12.8.1993 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 14.9.1995 (Annexure A/2).2. Applicant's case is that he was appointed on the post of Shroff with the respondent-Railways through Railway Service Commission, Allahabad on 11.10.1962 and thereafter promoted as Senior Head Shroff in 1964.That on 04.10.1966, the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur registered a case against the applicant on the charge that he cheated the Railway Administration by getting employment as Shroff in 1962 representing falsely in his application that he belonged to Santiya Caste, which is recognised as Scheduled Caste and further that the caste certificate obtained by the applicant from the Tehsildar, Bikaner was a forged one.The Special Magistrate vide his order dated 24.9.1970, convicted the applicant for offence under Section 420 and 471 of Indian Penal Code.In appeal the applican...

Suraj Bhan, Dy. Director Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ391CAT

1. Sh. Suraj Bhan has filed this O.A. against the penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in the time scale of pay imposed upon him with immediate effect with a further direction that he would earn his first increment in the reduced stage after one year vide order dated 13.11.96 (Annexure A). He was, at the time, a Sales Tax Officer incharge of Ward No. 46 (Old). He has also challenged the order dated 13.12.96 (Annexure AA) by which his pay has been fixed in accordance with the punishment order aforesaid. By bringing an amendment to the O.A., he has also challenged the order dated 10.2.98 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, in the Review Petition filed by the applicant in January, 1997. The main grounds taken are that the Lt. Governor's order inflicting punishment on the applicant is perverse and is based on no evidence.The respondents have controverted the issues raised by the applicant.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. We now proce...

N. Munimara Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. The applicant was appointed as a Telecommunication Mechanic Mate (TCM) with effect from 31.10.1968. He belongs to a scheduled caste. He was subsequently promoted as an Assistant Foreman with effect from 1.1.1996. The said post of Assistant Foreman is a Gr. 'C' non-gazetted technical post. The applicant was informed by the officiating Administrative Officer (AO) of the respondent organisation, that is, the Controllerate of Quality Assurance (Radar), CQA (R), Bangalore, which is impleaded as the second respondent in the O.A. that he was due for rotational transfer during the year 2000. In the same context he was asked to submit 3 choice stations to the administration by 2.11.1999. The communication to that effect is found at Annexure-A4 and is dated 27.10.1999. In response to that communication the applicant submitted a representation dated 3.11.1999 seen at Annexure-A5 seeking a reconsideration of the letter issued to him to furnish 3 choice stations for the purpose of transfer and ...

A. Thirumalai Vs. the Garrison Engineer (South) and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.6.2000 transferring him as an MT Driver Grade II from GE (South), Bangalore, to GE (North), Bangalore. The said order is issued by the Garrison Engineer (South), that is, GE, (South), who is the first respondent, and is found at Annexure-A3 of the O.A. The applicant made a representation against the impugned transfer to the Chief Engineer, (Air Force), that is, CE (Air Force), who is the fourth respondent in the present O.A. That representation dated 26,6.2000 submitted through proper channel, which is described as an appeal, is seen at Annexure-A4. The said representation was rejected by the GE (South) on the ground that the contents of the representation having been examined had not been found convincing for processing the same to the next higher office. This order, thus rejecting the representation, dated 29.6.2000 is seen at Annexure-A6. (ii) To quash the order of transfer/movement as at Annexure-A3 as unjust and illegal...

Rajendra Prasad Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

1. Applicant, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for setting aside the impugned order dated 01.7.1994 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 09.7.97 (Annexure A/2) and for a direction to the respondents to promote the applicant on the post of HS-II with effect from 01.7.1994 with all consequential benefits, and payment of arrears of pay & allowance with interest @ 18% per annum.2. Applicant's case is that he was initially appointed on the post of skilled Carpenter scale 225-308 w.e.f. 1.6.81 with the respondent-department. Consequent upon introduction of three grade structure upgradation scheme w.e.f. 15.10.84, respondents conducted a trade test for Carpenter, Painter, Electric Auto Fitter etc., for promotion to HS-II in January, 1986, wherein applicant also appeared and declared qualified and on recommendations of the DPC, the applicant and two other were appointed to HS-II w.e.f. 15.10.84 vide order date...

Deepak Sardana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

1. These Original Applications are being disposed of through this common order in view of similar facts and circumstances and the substantial questions for decision raised in these being practically the same.2. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the controversy raised in these OAs can be devided into two issued. Firstly, whether the services of the applicant should be regularised on the ground of similarly situated persons having been given the benefit of regularisation by the respondents. Secondly, even in the absence of the ground based on the similarly situated persons, whether the applicant is entitled to regularisation in the post of LDC simply on the ground of having rendered continuous service on the post of LDC for as long as 23 years, 3. As far as the first issue is concerned, the applicant has contended that similarly situated persons, namely, Lal Chand Jonewal, Raj Kumar and V.K Mathur have been regu...

Ashok Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

1. These two Original Applications are being disposed of by a common order in view of similar facts and circumstances and the substantial questions for decision raised being also practically the same.2. The applicants in these OAs are basically aggrieved by the seniority list of the Senior Clerks published on 31.1.1990 since while preparing it, seniority has been wrongly assigned on the basis of the result of the suitability test and not from the date of actual officiation/promotion against the non-fortuitous vacancies. They representated against such assignment of seniority and not getting any relief, came before us with these OAs. They, therefore, seek a direction to the respondents to assign them the seniority from the dates they were promoted, albeit on ad-hoc basis, on the posts of Senior Clerks and to accordingly modify the seniority list of 31.1.1990 with grant of consequential benefits.3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the mat...

Nirupama Rout Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack

1. Applicant's husband who was appointed as E.D.D.A, in Mahjuri Branch Post Office in account with Akhuapada Sub Post Office on 15.1.1980, a disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him and by order dated 13.12.1984, he was placed under put off duty. Ultimately, the Disciplinary Authority in order dated 21.1.1993 (Annexure-2) held him not guilty of the charges and directed his reinstatement with immediate effect. However, in the same order, he held that the period of put off duly, shall be treated as non-duty for all purposes though the same shall not constitute a break in service. After his reinstatement and while in service, he died on 29-8-1996. Applicant made an application for payment of ex gratia gratuity which would have been payable to her husband. The same was rejected by Supdt. of Post Offices, Bhadrak Division by order dated 9.4.1997 (Annexure-3). She made another representation, under Annexure-4 to reconsider the matter. This was turned down in letter dated 24.3.1999...