Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 2001 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.
Deba Prosad Sengupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-28-2001
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the AT, Act, 1985, whereby the applicant prays for the release of the grade increment for the year 1.7.1999 to 30.6.2000, in relaxation of the normal rules and as a special case.2. The relevant facts of the case are that after putting in about 37 years of service in the Audit and Accounts Department of the Government of India, the applicant superannuated on 30.6.2000 on attaining the age of 60 years. The normal date of grant of normal increment in his case was 1st July. The applicant who retired on 30.6.2000 wants that he should be granted grade increment which was to fall due on 1.7.2000 because he has worked for full year from 1.7.99 to 30.6.2000. It is stated that the rules and orders of the Government of India are made for disciplined and dedicated workers and a good Government servant should be rewarded for his service and it is legitimate expectation of the applicant to get the grade increment as he had sincerely and with utmost dedi...
S. Ramesh Vs. the Senior Superintendent of Post
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Jun-21-2001
1. The applicant who was working as Treasurer in Ashok Nagar Post Office having been removed from service in a disciplinary proceedings which has been confirmed by the appellate authority ('AA' for short), has filed the present application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the impugned orders on the ground that the impugned order of punishment is unjust and illegal; enquiry should have been conducted on the basis of old charge sheet instead of serving another charge sheet after the AA directed for de novo enquiry: enquiry has not been conducted as per the provisions of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules ('Rules' for short): shortage of cash was due to personal use of the same by Shri Ahmed Hussain, Sub Post Master ('SPM' for short); reasonable opportunity should have been given instead of setting him ex-parte : non conduct of joint enquiry following the provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules and non-production of documents.2. The respondents filed their r...
Manpuran Das and 50 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
1. This miscellaneous application under Rule 24 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 has been filed by the Manpuran Das and 50 others, applicants of OA No. 1048/2000 which was decided by this Tribunal on 22.12.2000.2. The case set up by the applicants in this Miscellaneous Application is that the Tribunal has dismissed the original application No.1048/2000 on the ground of availability of the alternative remedy, but the said alternative remedy for referring the matter to the Regional Labour Commissioner is not efficacious and effective. The further case of the applicants is that the Tribunal inadvertently overlooked the mandatory provision of the Indian Railway Act on the basis of which the Railway Servants (Hours of Employment) Rules, 1961 have been framed and the regulation is subordinate to the Act and therefore, such a regulation could not be made. It has been stated that Section 71A(c) has been over looked and that the classification of Chowkidar from the category of continuous to ...
Sekhar Kumar Chatterjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-19-2001
1. The instant application is directed against an order communicated under memo No. ADMN/SE/DEPTN/IRCON/248, dated 28th January, 1992, whereby the acceptance of the applicants' resignation under office order No. II/91/ 228, dated 1st January, 1991. w.e.f. 15th July, 1991 (A/N), has been cancelled on the plea of public interest. There was a prayer for direction upon the South Eastern Railway authorities to immediately release the superannuation benefits to which the applicant was entitled to together with 18% interest p.a.2. The basic facts of the case are uncontroverted. The applicant having joined the Railway Service as Store Issuer got promoted to the post of Section Officer in Garden Reach, South Eastern Railway. Subsequently, pursuant to the invitation of applications for appointment to Indian Railway Construction Company Limited (for short, IRCON), the applicant, being found eligible for appointment on deputation, was released by the parent department i.e., Railways and he thereu...
Amit JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-13-2001
1. Shri Amit Jain, applicant in this OA seeks directions to the respondents for re-fixation of his pay, granting him the benefit of protection of emoluments (basic + DA) drawn by him with his previous employers, with United India Insurance Company Ltd. with due increments in terms in OA No. 12/1/88-Estt (Pay-I) dated 7.8.1989 w.e.f. 1.8.1989 with notional benefits from the date of his joining the Central Government services along with arrears and the interest.2. Heard Shri G.K. Masand and Shri R.R. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri V.D. Vadhavkar, Proxy Counsel for Shri M.I. Sethna, for the respondents.3. To narrate the facts in brief, the applicant who worked as Asstt.Administrative Officer (Accounts) with the United India Insurance Company Ltd., a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India from 7.10.1980 to 7.12.1984, joined on 10.12.1984 as a Direct Recruit Appraiser Mumbai Customs House, Deptt. of Revenue Ministry of Finance.In the United India Insurance...
N.A. Kunjappan and ors. Vs. Chief General Manager, Telecom
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-11-2001
(i) "to declare that the applicants are fully eligible and entitled to be promoted as Junior Telecom Officer on the basis of their qualifying in the Departmental Screening Test held on 29.01.1995 subject to their successful completion of Prc-Basic Training and Junior Telecom Officer Recruitment Training Phase-I and II; (ii) to issue appropriate direction or order directing the respondents 1 to 3 to complete the selection process already initiated for promotion to the cadre of Junior Telecom Officer in respect of the applicants and to promote them as Junior Telecom Officer on their successful completion of the requisite training prescribed in that behalf without regard to Annexure A-13 Junior Telecom Officer Recruitment Rules, 1999 with all consequential benefits; (iii) to issue appropriate direction to order directing respondents 1 to 3 to depute the applicants for Pre-Basic Training forthwith; (iv) to grant such other reliefs which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and just ...
B.N. Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-08-2001
1. This combined order disposes of three applications, which are similar in nature, cover identical issues and have been heard together.2. Heard Mr. S. Natarajan and Mr. Ranganathan, Proxy for Mr. J.P.Deodhar, learned Counsel for the applicant and respondents respectively.3. Shri B.N. Singh, applicant in OA No. 1241/96, who joined B ARC as Tradesman 'B' on 3.12.1983, was promoted as Tradesman 'C' w.e.f.1.11.1988. Though his promotion as Tradesman 'D' was due on 1.11.1993, it was granted to him only on 1.11.1995. This delay was on account of imposition of penalty on 14.12.92 of reduction in pay scale by two stages for two years w.e.f. 1.1.1993, which was confirmed on 22.2.1993.In terms of the Merit Scheme for promotion from Tradesman 'C' to Tradesman 'D' a trade test followed by an interview is conducted, following which the persons found fit would be promoted from the previous 1st May or 1st November, as the case may be. The applicant having passed the trade test, was called for inter...
A.M. Kanpurwala Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2001
1. The Applicant Shri A.M. Kanpurwala has come up before this Tribunal in this OA challenging the order/letter No. BSL. 533.28 PW1 Gr. I and II date 4.9.1995 issued by the respondents directing that the intervening period from the dated of compulsory retirement to the date of his reinstatement be treated as dies non.2. Heard learned Counsel Shri Ghaisas for the applicant and Shri Dhawan for the respondents, 3. In this case, it is seen that the applicant, who was working with Indian Railways was served on 22.8.94 a letter bearing No.BSL/P/576/EB/Review proposing to retire him compulsorily with effect from 13.9.94 and advising him to file representation if any relating to the proposed action. Further letter was issued on 13.9.94 stating that he would stand retired on 28.9.94. On his filing detailed representation against the order of compulsory retirement, his case was examined and by the impugned order dated 4.9.95 he was directed to be reinstated in service and the intervening period ...
M.M. Mehta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2001
1. The applicant who belongs to Gujarat Administrative Services and was considered for promotion and appointment to IAS and could not be appointed on account of the pending criminal trial has moved this O. A.for direction to the respondents to promote and appoint him to IAS with retrospective effect and to give him appropriate posting in IAS with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. The case of the applicant in nut-shell is that after being appointed as Mamladar on 1.4.68 he had become Dy. Collector on 17.1.78 and subsequently promoted as Additional Collector on 22.1.88. He had become eligible to be promoted to IAS cadre under the Indian Administrative Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation on his completing eight years of service as Dy. Collector in the year 1993-94. His case was for the first time considered for the promotion to I.A.S. by Selection Committee which met in 1994-95 According to him he was selected by the Selection Committee and his name was pro...
K.H. Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jun-07-2001
1. Heard Mr. B.P. Tanna, Mr. N.S. Kariel with Mr. A.L. Sharma for the applicant and Mr. Paresh Upadhyay for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. M.S.Rao for respondent No. 2 2. This litigation has a chequered history. The applicant who was directly recruited as Dy. SP in the State Police Service and had become eligible for consideration for promotion to IPS was not recommended for consideration for promotion to IPS by the State Government on the ground of contemplation of the inquiry against him. The applicant therefore moved the Hon'ble High Court by filing special CA No.5340/92. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to issue rule and granted interim relief but the same had been challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench by way of Letters Patent Appeal and a grievance was raised before the Division Bench that looking to the nature of the relief sought by the present applicant, the Central Administrative Tribunal was the appropriate forum and not the Hon'ble High Court. The Div...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »