Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court September 2001 Judgments

Dr. R. Viswanathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. The applicant, an Officer belonging to the 1966 batch of Indian Police Service, and working as a Director General of Police in Government of Karnataka, has challenged the non-inclusion of his name in the panel of IPS Officers selected for the posts at the level of Director General of Police (DGP) at the Centre. He has essentially sought the reliefs of quashing the panel of DGPs formed by the concerned respondents for appointment of the IPS Officers under the Government of India, treating the same as illegal and arbitrary, and of a direct ion to the concerned respondents to consider his case for appointment to one of the posts of DGPs listed in Schedule III C to the IPS (Pay) Rules, 1954. He has also sought the interim relief of a direction to the concerned respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post of Director, CBI, which fell vacant with effect from 30.4.2001. The interim relief has been specifically sought on the ground that the respondents have illegally made t...

Dr. Haresh D. Ramaiya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ237CAT

1. This is an application made by Dr. H.D. Ramaiya, who had been working as Public Health Dentist with the Administration of Union Territory of Daman & Diu seeking the relief from this Tribunal as follows : "(A) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the present case and after exaining the legality and propriety thereof quash and set aside the orders at Annexure 'A-1 and Annexure 'A-2' and further direct the respondents to pay the applicant the arrears of salary for the period from 1.3.2000 till 14.7.2000 and accordingly also fix the applicant's pensions on the basis of the last drawn salary along with all consequential benefits. (B) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the action on the part of the respondents in not disbursing to the applicant the salary benefits for the period from 1.3.2000 till 14.7.2000 is illegal and bad in law and accordingly direct the respondents to pay to the applicant salary for the period from 1....

B.K. Raghuram and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ241CAT

1. The lowest rung of Group 'A' of Indian Railway Senior Electrical Engineering Service is junior scale Rs. 2200-4000/-. Promotion to Group 'A' is made from amongst eligible Group 'B' officers belonging to Electrical Engineering Department, who have put in minimum of 3 years non-fortuitous service in the grade. The promotion is by way of selection.2. The two applicants were promoted to Group 'B' on 8.4.80 and 2.1.81 respectively. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 were promoted to Group 'B' on 17.10.84, 5.1.87 and 2.1.87 respectively. The applicant as well as the private respondents were considered for promotion and were recommended by the DPC which met in February, 1992 and were appointed to Group 'A' Junior scale by order dated 25.4.1992. The DPC prepared year-wise panels against 99 vacancies and recommended 94 officers for promotion.A notification dated 24.4.1992 was issued promoting them, which comprises of the applicant and the private respondents. Though the applicants are admittedly se...

V.A. Kumaran and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

1. The applicants in this case, Shri V.A. Kumaran, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum North Division Trivandrum and Shri M.J. Chacko, Assistant Director of Postal Services, Office of Chief PMG, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum, are aggrieved against sub para (iv) of Paragraph-III of Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/9l-Estt.(D) dated 27.3.1997 of the Department of Personnel and Training, [A-9(2)] and consequent promotion order dated 23.7.1998 (A-10) whereby the juniors of the applicants are stated to be promoted overlooking the applicants in the matter of promotion from Group 'B' Postal Services to the Junior Time Scale (JTS for short) of Postal Services Group 'A'. The applicants are further aggrieved by Office Memoranda rejecting their representations against non-promotion to Group 'A' JTS. A-17 is the O.M. dated 16.10.98 whereby the 2nd applicant's representation is rejected.2. We have gone through the pleadings and the relevant material on record. We have also heard Shri O.V. R...

T.P. Gopinath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ491CAT

1. The short question that calls for answer in this case is, when an officer placed under suspension during the investigation or trial in a criminal case is reinstated on acquittal by the competent criminal Court, without holding any disciplinary proceeding, can his pay and allowances for the period during suspension be denied to him. The applicant while working as a Telephone Inspector, Mattancherry, was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules with effect from 1.2.89 as a criminal case against him was under investigation. After investigation, the applicant was tried by the CBI Court, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13( I )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Sections 7 and 13( 1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The applicant carried the matter before...

Tapesh Chandra Saha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

1. Through this application under Section 19 of the A.T. Act applicant, Tapesh Chandra Sana calls in question the suspension order dated 3.9.92 and the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It has been prayed that the applicant be allowed to resume his duty as Jamadar Durwan and he should be paid all consequential benefits.2. The applicant had joined as Durdwan in the Ordnance Factory, Dum Dum on 2.7.79. After putting in about 4 years service he was promoted to the post of Jamadar Durdwan and since then he has been holding that post. On 3.9.92 respondent No. 1 issued an order placing the applicant under suspension with effect from 4.9.92 in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Two months thereafter the applicant was served with a memorandum of charges. He made representation before the General Manager on 3.9.92 stating that Shri K.P. Chakraborty, Security Foreman was against him and he was insulting him in all possible ways.The applicant filed reply to the chargesheet ...

Dr. Y.R. Midha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a member of the Indian Audit and Accounts Service has assailed a memorandum issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 21.7.2000 as well as an order passed on 1.9.2000 wherein his request for quashing the chargesheet has been rejected as well as an order passed on 5.10.2000 whereby the disciplinary authority has appointed an inquiring authority to enquire into the charges framed against the applicant.2. Briefly stated the applicant has joined Indian Audit and Accounts Service in 1977 and was promoted as a Director of Audit at Washington and had dealt with sensitive matters and was promoted in the Senior Administrative Grade in 1993. He was posted as Principal Director, Commercial Audit in 1997 and was holding the status of an Ex-Officio Member of Audit Board IV, where physical verification of stocks held in the Godowns of the Food Corporation of India were being conducted under the directions of the respondent No. 3. On 4.7.97 through a Note of the C...

Mangilal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ235CAT

1. Prayer to the applicant in this O.A. is that the respondents be directed to promote the applicant as Passenger Driver in scale of Rs. 1600-2660 from the date his juniors were promoted w.e.f. 22.10.90 and to promote the applicant further as Mail/Express Gr. 'A' scale 1640-2900 w.e.f. 28.10.92, when his juniors were so promoted with all consequential benefits of payment of salary and allowances retrospectively not only as passenger driver and mail/express driver but also in respect of his retrospective promotion to the post of Fireman Gr. 'C', Fireman Gr. 'B' and Fireman Gr. 'A' and Driver Gr.'C'.2. Case of the applicant is that he was not assigned with the correct seniority position right from the date of his appointment as Cleaner.Thus, in the channal of promotion to the post of Fireman Gr, 'C' and further, he was not given promotion as per his due turn while his juniors got promoted earlier. The applicant alongwith others moved this matter in the High Court of Rajasthan by filing ...

Shri Balvir Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in this OA is directed against the alleged improper action of the respondents in holding a fresh enquiry against the applicant on the same grounds as in the earlier enquiry.2. Heard Shri G.D. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant and Shri V.S.R. Krishna, learned Counsel for the respondents.3. The applicant who was recruited to Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Police. Service (DAMPS) on the basis of Civil Service Examination, 1980 (CSE-1980) joined duties on 29.6.1982. Accordingly, he was to complete his probation in June 1984, but was informed on 21.4.1988 that the same stood extended until further orders, though on reason for the same was mentioned. In the meanwhile, he was placed under suspension between 9.9.1983 and 26.2.1987, on the basis of a false complaint filed by one Shri Mit Singh to pressurise his tenant, one Shri R.S. Rati, the applicant's uncle to vacate the rented premises. The preliminary enquiry report prepared at the back of the applicant, alleged ...

Yamini Chauhan Vs. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

1. The services of the applicant appointed as Physical Education Teacher (PET) vide respondents' letter dated 13.1.1997 (Ann. A2) by which she was placed on probation for a period of 2 years has been terminated by the respondents by their order dated 20th April, 2000 (Ann. A9), more than 3 years after she had assumed the charge of the post of PET on 1.2.1997. The aforesaid order was taken in appeal without success. The appellate authority has rejected the applicant's prayer by his order of 22nd February, 2001 (Ann. A1). Both the orders aforesaid have been impugned in the present OA. The prayer made is for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid orders and consequently for her reinstatement in service on the post of PET (Female). The further prayer made is that the respondents should be directed to declare the applicant confirmed on the post of PET (Female) w.e.f. 1.2.2000 on which date he had completed 3 years of probation.2. The main contentions raised on behalf of the applicant are...