Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court September 2000 Judgments

A. Thirumalai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras

"To quash the impugned order No. 11002/RD/Pers-6 dated 15.6.1998 passed by the 2nd respondent and to pass a consequential order directing the respondents to pass suitable orders for extending the applicant's service (deemed extension) by two years from 1.7.1988 to 30.6.1990 and to pay the salary, allowances due thereon and other monetary benefits to the applicant." 2. The applicant joined the respondent organization on 9.12.1954. He retired from service on attaining the age of 58 years on 30.6.1988 while he was in the post of Scientist 'D' category. By the Office Memorandum No. 7 (3)/85-D (R & D) dated 24.12.1985 the superannuation of Scientist and Technical Personnel (Gazetted) was enhanced from 58 to 60years. But there was a proviso to the effect that the said enhancement was applicable only to those people who had been promoted to the grades they were holding at the time of attaining the age of 58 years within the preceding 5 years.3. The said proviso was challenged by one Sri ...

Megh Singh Sisodia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ310CAT

1. This application is filed for a direction to the respondents to give the applicant the benefit of the judgment of C. A.T., Principal Bench, New Delhi, passed in O.A. No. 115/90. There is a further prayer for refixing the seniority of the applicant from 10.12.1951, with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the applicant is that he joined as L.D.C. on 10.12.51 in the department of Custodian, where he was promoted as U.D.C. with effect from 17.02.58 and worked in that department till 12.05.60.Thereafter, from 15.04.64, the applicant was duly selected by UPSC and appointed as LDC in the present department, i.e., Armed Forces Headquarters (AFHQ, for short). He has filled a copy of the appointment letter as Annexure 'B'. The further case of the applicant is that with effect from 4.9.82, the applicant was promoted as Assistant in AFHQ and he retired from service with effect from 30th September, 1987. In substance, the case of the applicant is that while fixing his seniority as L.D.C....

R.K. Hatwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ40CAT

1. In this Application the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to consider the application of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Director, Central Cattle Breeding Farm with effect from September 1990 as against five vacant posts on the basis of seniority and eligibility as per the Recruitment Rules, 1969. He has also prayed for a declaration that the decision of the respondents for giving promotion only to Veterinary Graduates isolating the Agriculture Graduates is null and void. He has also asked for a direction to the respondents to allow him the Career Advancement with effect from 1.10.1992 as he has reached the maximum of the scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- since long.2. The applicant's case is that he was appointed as Agricultural Officer in Central Cattle Breeding Farm (CCBF), Similiguda in Koraput district on 7.1.1974 and has been working as such being in Group-B gazetted rank. He has completed 20 years of continuous service without any promotion. Consequ...

D.N. Keshava Murthy Vs. Jt. Development Commissioner and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ396CAT

1. The applicant was issued with a Memorandum of Charge relating to the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs. 2,500/- from one Shri Govindan, while functioning as the Deputy Director (Glass and Ceramics), Small Industries Service Institute (SlSI), Madras, (the Institute for short) during May, 1993. In the statement of the Article of Charge it was mentioned that on 12.5,1993 he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3,000/- from Shri K. Govindan as a motive for forwarding his project report to the Bank for availing loan and further that in pursuance thereof on 14.5.1993 the applicant again demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs. 2,500/ - from the said K.Govindan abusing thereby his official position and thus failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant violating the provisions of Rule 3(1) of Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Conduct Rules for short). Attached to...