Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court October 2002 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.
R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Oct-31-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ254CAT
1. As the issue involved in these three Original Applications is the same viz. repatriation these three O.As. were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The applicant aggrieved by A1 office order dated 10.4.2000 issued by the second respondent by which the applicant was ordered to be repatriated to his parent Division viz. Palghat Division and A2 reversion order issued by the 5th respondent dated 11.4.2000 filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs: (i) set aside or quash not only Annexure A1 to the extent to which the name of the applicant is included therein as a person liable to be repatriated to open line wing, but also Annexure A2 by which the pay and allowances of the applicant are reduced arbitrarily ignoring Annexures A7 and A8. (ii) Direct the respondents to see that the applicant is retained in the same post and grade in which he was continuing as is seen from Annexure A7 and A8 and he be paid salary and allowances as specified i...
G. Rajanna and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Oct-30-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ306CAT
1. As the issues involved reliefs sought for and the grounds urged in support of the prayer are the same in all these cases. We proposed to dispose of all these O. As. by a common order. For the sake of convenience, reference to Annexures etc., will relate to O.A. No.415/2002.2. The applicants who are working as Assistant Engineer and governed by the rules known as Department of Telecom and Department of Posts Civil Engineer Group-B Gazetted Officers Recruitment Rules, 1992 have filed the present O.A. and sought the following reliefs: "(a) by issue of a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction as the case may be quash Annexure-A6 passed by the first respondent termed as corrigendum in No. 9-1/2002-CWG dated 16.4.2002 in so far as it relate to the applicant is concerned: (b) by issue of a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction as the case may be direct the respondents not to disturb the applicant from B.S.N.L. in which post he is wo...
Lekshmi G. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Oct-29-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ234CAT
1. Applicant, aggrieved by A-1 order dated 30.12.2000 whereby it was ordered to recover Rs. 24,747 (25% of Rs. 1,23,737/-) from her salary through 10 monthly instalments beginning from the month of October 2000, filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs: (ii) To issue necessary order or direction to 2nd respondent directing him not to recover any amount from the monthly salaries of the applicant till the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her as per A9 is over. (iii) To issue necessary direction to 2nd respondent declaring that the applicant has not committed any error or omission in causing any loss to the Department and the excess amount paid to the claimant can be levied from him as per rules, by initiating appropriate proceedings against the person who received the over payment. (iv) To issue any other further order or direction this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.2. According to the averments of the applicant i...
M. Asokan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Oct-28-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ41CAT
1. The applicant an officer of the TES Group B officiating as Assistant General Manager (Administration) in the office of the General Manager, Telecommunications, Kerala Circle, Kannur has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act challenging the validity of the impugned order Annexure A1 dated 27.9.2006 by which he was transferred from Kerala Telecom Circle to North East Telecom Circle with immediate effect.2. The material allegations in the application can be briefly stated as follows.3. The applicant who commenced his service as a telephone Operator in the year 1964 on account of his hard work and merit and passing competitive examinations climbed the ladders and reached the present position. As Assistant General Manager (Administration) the applicant has been dealing with transfers and postings of the staff under the Kannur SSA. The 4th respondent the Minister of State for Communications had recommended transfers of various staff in the SSA out of...
S.P.S. Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Oct-22-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ150CAT
1. By this application, the applicant, who belongs to Indian Police Service, has challenged his repatriation to his parent cadre viz.Government of Maharashtra, from the post of Chief Vigilance Officer of Air India Limited at Mumbai, a Public Sector Undertaking owned and controlled by the Government of India.2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed on deputation as Chief Vigilance Officer of Air India Limited, Mumbai by letter dated 29.11.2000. On 13.2.2001, the Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation, issued another letter in respect of terms and conditions for appointment on deputation. By said letter the term of deputation provided was that initially it is for a period of three years from the date of assumption of charge i.e. 8.12.2000 (FN) or until further orders whichever is earlier. Though the appointment of the applicant was for a period of three years but by letter dated 20.6.2002, the Ministry of Civil Aviation directed his premature repatriation a...
Ram Niwas Jangid Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Oct-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ231CAT
1. Shri Ram Niwas Jangid has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and has prayed for the following reliefs:-- "i) The Disciplinary Proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground of violation of Principle of Natural Justice, as the Disciplinary Authority has not afforded an opportunity to explain the case before issue of memorandum of charges. (ii) The Disciplinary Proceedings initiated in the year 1992 and not disposed of till today are sought to be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay. (iii) The Disciplinary Proceedings are sought to be quashed on the ground that persons placed in similar and identical circumstances were treated differently. (iv) Consequential benefits of the applicant may be ordered from the retrospective date i.e. Promotion to the high rank with pecuniary benefits and interest thereon. (vi) Any other reliefs as the Hon'ble Bench may consider necessary, appropriate and reasonable in the facts and circums...
Sri Raja @ Rajkishor Parida Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: 96(2003)CLT4
1. In this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) The previous service of the petitioner may kindly be accepted and accounted for, towards pension; (ii) The Applicant may be allowed to join his duty forthwith since he is entitled to work upto 60 years or on the alternative his pension papers may be corrected." 2. It is the case of the Applicant that even though he had been in the Railways, on casual basis, from the year 1958 and Annexure-1 to the O.A. shows that he had been working in the Railways as a substitute/casual labourer, in the superannuation order dated 29.7.1997 it has been mentioned by the Respondents that he had worked only from 24.1.1990 to 31.8.1997; which fact he had also brought to the notice of his authorities/Respondents through representation but did not yield any fruitful result. It is alleged that even though his date of birth is 25.7.1942, the same has been wrongly...
Smt. Aniva Dutta, Postal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Oct-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ195CAT
1. The issue is identical is all the four O.As. concerning the legitimacy of the impugned order dated 10.9.2002 transferring the four applicants from Agartala Postal Division. The text of the order is reproduced below: '"The Chief Postmaster General, North Eastern Circle, Shillong hereby ordered the transfer/posting of the following officials of Agartala Postal Division under Rule 37 of P&T Manual Vol. IV to have immediate effect and in the interest of service. The above four (4) officials who are being transferred out of Agartala Postal Division should be relieved within 14th September, 2002 positively. If they are not relieved within the stipulated date, they will be deemed to have, been relieved. The Sr. Supdt. of P.Os., Meghalaya Division, Shillong will immediately issue the posting order in respect of Shri Janardhan Debnath and Shri Haru Das Gupta. The Supdt. of P.Os., Dharmanagar Division will also immediately issue the posting order in respect of Smti Aniva Dutta and Smti A...
Savita Rani and ors. Vs. Union Territory and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Oct-08-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ124CAT
1. The applicants in the aforesaid two OAs are the members of the regular cadre of the Education Deptt., U.T. Chandigarh. They joined as Nursery Teachers/J.B.T. Teachers in the year 1976 on regular basis.They are claiming the benefit of higher pay scale for having acquired the higher qualification prior to 19th February, 1979 with all consequential benefits as has been allowed to other Teachers pursuant to the decision of this Court dated 8th January, 1998 in OA No.649/CH/97 - R.D. Kaushal and 20 Ors. v. Union of India and 3 Ors., and the earlier decision dated 18.6.90 in OA No. 172/CH/1990.2. It is asserted that all the applicants are similarly placed as the applicants in the aforesaid OAs and, therefore, on ground of parity, they are also entitled to the benefit of higher pay scale for having acquired higher qualification prior to 19.2.1979.3. The respondents, particularly the Director Public Instructions (School), Chandigarh Administration, has taken the plea that the present OAs a...
Mrs. J.J. Lal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Oct-01-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ52CAT
(i) respondents be directed to include the name of the applicant in the eligibility list for consideration for promotion to the post of Chief Matron (Annex. A1) dated 19.6.2001. (ii) respondents be directed to exclude the name of Rule 4 from the list of eligible candidates for preparing the panel for promotion to the post of Chief Matron in the scale of pay of Rs. 7450-11500. (iii) the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant for promotion to the post of Chief Matron in the scale of pay of Rs. 7450-11500 treating the name of the applicant in the list of eligible candidates.2. As per the Recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, new post of Chief Matron has been introduced without changing the cadre strength of the post Matron. It is averred that out of the cadre strength of Matron which was 33, 5 posts have been upgraded. It is further averred that the Chief Matron post is a selection post and is required to be filled by written test followed by viva voca....
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »