Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court October 2001 Judgments

Jagdish Prasad Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ233CAT

1. The applicant has assailed order dated 19.11.1997 (Ex. A) whereby he is sought to be prematurely retired under Rule 1802 (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-II. The applicant was functioning as Assistant Controller of Stores, Group 'B' at the time the aforesaid order was passed. The applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the aforesaid order with consequential benefits.2. The learned Counsel of the applicant Mr. G.S. Walia has basically raised two issues in the present matter - (1) that the impugned order has not been passed by the appointing authority, i.e., the General Manager and that it has been passed against the provisions of the Statutory Rule 1802 (a) ; and (2) that while the objective of compulsory retirement under the provisions of Rule 1802 (a) is to weed out the dead wood when an employee has outlived his utility, the applicant's meritorious and efficient service of thirty years has not been taken into account and the impugned order has been ...

Manas Kumar Chakrabarti Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. In this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the question to be decided is whether the Notification Annexure 'B' dated 23.5.2001, amended vide order dated 10.7.2001 appointing Shri Dinesh Chandra Vajpai (respondent No. 6) to the post of Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police (for short DG&IGP), is bad and illegal and is liable to be quashed.2. We shall first state the facts on which there is no dispute between the parties. They are as follows: (i) Applicant, Shri Manas Kumar Chakraborty and respondent No. 6, Shri Dinesh Chandra Vajpai are IFS of 1966 batch and in the merit list the name of the applicant had appeared at Sl. No. 2 and that of the respondent No. 6 at Sl. No. 6. (ii) There are four posts of Director General of Police (DGP) in the State of West Bengal, which are in the Grade and Scale of Rs.24050-650-26000/-. They are: (iii) On 28.2.2001 the following officers were working in the Grade and Scale of DGP : Out of them Shri D. ...

Gajendra Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ315CAT

1. The controversy involved in all these O.As. is on the common point and all the applicants being similarly placed, these O.As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. The applicants are being engaged as Boatmen or Additional Khalasis from year to year starting from the year 1977 in case of some applicants and later years in the case of other applicants. Every year they are engaged for a period of 89 days only as the nature of work is admittedly seasonal and the occasion arises to engage them in every monsoon season for round the clock observation of the river gauge for the purpose of flood forecasting etc. The department needs additional unskilled persons through the month of June/July to September/October, when the monsoon is active. The department maintains a list of such persons engaged from year to year and every year before the onset of the Monsoon, the staff engaged in the previous year is intimated so that their names are considered every time when the need arises. Havi...

Shashi A. Thakur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ43CAT

1. In this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 31.5.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority removing him from service. He has stated that he had preferred an appeal against the removal order vide his Memo of Appeal dated 29.6,1995 but "no information has been given to the applicant until the filing of this Original Application". This O.A. has been filed on 23.9.1996.2. With regard to the aforesaid submission made by the applicant, we note that the respondents in their reply filed on 13.1.1997, have submitted in paragraph 11 as follows: "Shri S. A. Thakur has submitted an appeal against the said order of "Removal from service" issued by COMCG (W), to the appellate authority viz DGCG. The said appeal has been considered by the said appellate authority and the same has been rejected keeping in view the nature of the offence leading to the charges. The said decision has been communicated to the charged employee by RHQ (W) letter No. CGR/CE/269/SAT dated 09 Apr 96 o...

S. Damodaran Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ340CAT

1. Applicant who was working as permanent auditor in the Defence Account Department. Thiruvananthapuram has filed this Original Application aggrieved by A-1 order dated 21.10.95 issued by the Local Audit Officer, seeking the following reliefs: (ii) An order directing the respondents to pay the provident fund amount from 1980 onwards with statutory interest till the entire claim is satisfied. (iii) Such other reliefs which are just and equitable and the facts of the case may require, and 2. Applicant was working as permanent auditor in the Defence Accounts Department in the office of the Local Audit Office (Army), Thiruvananthapuram. On 7.5.80 he was involved in a criminal case under Section 302 IPC. He was suspended from service on 7.5.80. Subsequently he was dismissed from service on 3.1.81 (Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this date should be read as 3.12.81). While the applicant was in prison, he sent A-2 letter to GDA West Block, R.K.Puram, New Delhi to disburse hi...

Virender Kumar Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

1. In all these applications, common questions of facts and law arise, hence we are disposing of all these OAs by this common judgment.2. In O.A. No. 184/96, the applicant Shri Virendra Kumar has challenged his termination order dated 29.09.95 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 17.10.95 (Annexure A/ 2) respectively. He has also challenged the Para 26(b) of Standing Operating Procedure (SOP, for short) as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.3. In O.A. No. 183/96, the applicant Shri Baljeet Singh has challenged his termination order dated 13.06.95 (Annexure A/1) and he has also challenged the Para 17 of the Standing Order dated 16.06.86 (Annexure A/2), as being ultra vires of Articles of 14 and 21 of the Constitution.4. In O.A. No. 182/96, the applicant Narendra Singh Rana, likewise has challenged his order of termination dated 30.05.95 (Annexure A/1) and the order dated 31.05.95 (Annexure A/2) by which the applicant's mercy petition regarding cancellation of terminati...

C.K. Mishra, I.F.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. The applicant was directly recruited to Indian Forest Service (for short IFS). He was initially posted in 1989 as Divisional Forest Officer and thereafter he worked in many capacities. On 17.3.99 he was posted as Project Director, District Rural Development Agency, Anantapur. Within a period of 7 months, he was once again shifted and was directed to report before the 2nd respondent. Accordingly he reported on 18.11.99 for posting. Aggrieved for not issuing the posting orders, he filed OA 1916/99. Hon'ble Tribunal directed that the representation of the applicant be disposed of. Thereafter he was transferred and posted against Ex-cadre post of Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad Division, Nalgonda. As there were practically no duties and responsibilities corresponding to IFS cadre post, he filed representation on 22.12.99 requesting to post him in a post commensurate to the duties of senior IFS cadre post. The applicant filed OA 37/2000 which was disposed of directing 2nd respon...

M. Yanthan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ221CAT

1. The legitimacy of the process of recruitment by promotion from amongst the substantive members of the State Civil Service to the All India Service in aid of the Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 read with the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 concerning the applicant is the core issue for adjudication in this application. This is the second round of litigation so far the applicant is concerned.2. The applicant is a senior Member of the Nagaland State Civil Service and posted as Secretary, Government of Nagaland, Excise Department. A Selection Committee was constituted for the purpose of preparation of a list of suitable officers under Rule 3 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) for the purose of recruitment by promotion for the year 1996-97. The Selection Committee did not recommend the applicant. The applicant questioned the afore...

Sukumar Kar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. The applicant Shri Sukumar Kar, has filed OA 40 of 1998 and OA 131 of 1998 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. In OA 40 of 1998 the applicant has prayed that the respondents be directed to produce the relevant records of the case and upon such production for a declaration that the applicant stood voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period of 3 months from the notice dated 3.12.1990 or alternatively from the notice dated 6.6.1995. It has further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the applicant all the retiral dues with interest @ 18% p.a. to compensate the monetary loss for arbitrary action on the part of the respondents. In OA 131 of 1998 the applicant has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 5.11.1997 (Ann. A-6) and also a direction to the respondent to pay the cost of the application.2. Briefly the facts in OA of 1998, as per applicant are that the applicant joined the respondents establishment on 03.03.1965 as Tracer.During the ...

Jagdish Singh Chauhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ288CAT

1. By this O.A. the applicant has prayed for declaring the cut off date as arbitrary in the O.M. No. 28 (10)/84 P & PW Volume II dated 7.2.1986, and to direct the respondents to count the previous service of the applicant from 1.6.1946 to 9.5.1960 rendered by the applicant in Zila Panchayat, Kanpur Dehat towards qualifying service for pension and related pensionary benefits and payment of arrears from 31.10.84 till date.2. For clarity of the points involved in the O.A. the brief facts of the case are necessary to be given.The applicant was initially appointed as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector in the then District Board (now known as Zila Panchayat), Kanpur Dehat.While working as such, the applicant applied through proper channel for appointment to the post of Assistant Research Officer (Publicity Officer-cum-Health Educator) which later came to be known as Health Education Officer in the Indian Council of Medical Research (in short I.C.M.R.) in its Tricoma. Control Pilot Project (in ...