Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court November 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.
S.D. Sharma and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ269CAT
1. The applicants ten in number are all IAS Officers promoted from the Gujarat State Civil Service Officers' cadre. They are aggrieved by the seniority given to them in the IAS cadre as well as the year of allotment assigned to them vide Notification dated 16th July, 1996 and communication dated 17th April 1997 and seek the direction against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to see that while implementing the judgment in TA/43 of 1986 their position in the IAS cadre shown on the basis of the select list of 1979 as well as December 1986/January 19/87 should not be affected or changed in any manner. This litigation is a fall out of the earlier litigations and therefore a brief history of the earlier litigations will have to be recorded to understand the question involved in this O.A.2. The dispute of the seniority amongst the State Civil Service Officers had resulted into non-preparation of the select list for making appointment to the IAS cadre from the year 1974 onwards. The direct recruit ...
Anjanappa and 4 ors. Vs. G.M., Southern Railway and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ88CAT
"Though judicial hypersensitiveness is not warranted but angelic silence on the part of the Judge is not also not expected vis-a-vis infraction of the majesty of law." 2. These proceedings have been initiated by this Tribunal on its own motion vide order dated 23.10.2002, which reads as under: "1. Vide memo dated 9.8.2001 filed by the applicants various original documents in the nature of Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001, Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 as well as original Casual Labour Service Card in respect of five applicants have been filed. The said memo dated 9.8.2001 is neither verified by the applicants nor it is supported by an affidavit. The learned Counsel for the respondents has filed additional reply dated 7.8.2002 whereby the authenticity and genuineness of the Certificate of Endorsement dated 3.7.2001, Verified Certificate dated 5.7.2001 as well as Casual Labour Service Card has been questioned. It has been specifically stated that certificate dated 3.7.200...
Omprakash Dukhilal Yadav and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-29-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ370CAT
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for direction to the respondents to regularise the services of the applicants by taking into account the vacancies of all the Military Firms in Southern Command and by following common seniority lift and to restrain the respondents from terminating their services.2. By amendment of the O.A. the applicants have further sought the declaration that proposed action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicants in pursuance of the order dated 15.12.2001 being illegal be quashed and respondents be restrained from terminating the services of the applicants as per order dated 15.12.2001.3. By a further amendment the declaration is sought is that proposed termination of services of the applicants and offer of job basis work being illegal be quashed and applicants have acquired temporary status.4. The applicants claimed that Applicant No. 1 Om Prakash Yadav, Applicant No. 2 Shiv Bhushan Yadav...
R. Rama Murthy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Nov-28-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ35CAT
1. This application is filed by the applicant, who is a retired pensioner, for a declaration that the impugned letter dated 9.5.01 issued by the Accountant General (A&E), Orissa vide Annexure-I as void and illegal being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in various judgments and for a direction to the respondents to pay him the amounts as mentioned in Annexure-V by way of pension and arrears due to him and also to pay the amounts which are fallen short from the said amount claimed by him during the period in question from 28.6.95 to 31.12.95 in terms of the recommendations made by the 4th Central Pay Commission and from 1.1.1996 in accordance with the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission and thereafter in accordance with any such revised fixation of pension the 1st respondent may make from time to time. The applicant also sought for a declaration that the various paragraphs mentioned in the ...
A.D. Sharma Vs. the Commissioner Kendriya
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Nov-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ446CAT
1. Original Application No. 283/2002 (A.D. Sharma) and Original Application No. 284 (Dr. Anand Dixit), have been filed for quashing their transfer orders. Facts and grounds leading to the issuance of the transfer order are similar and common and there being decided by a common order; The brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicant are that the applicant was initially appointed to the post of PGT (Chemistry) on 21.08.1986 at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sri Ganganagar. He has been discharging his duties efficiently and satisfactorily maintaining clean records. It has also been pleaded that he has enjoyed appreciations/rewards from his superiors and never faced any unusualness except the one involved in this application. There has been no adverse remarks against him till date.2. Further case of the applicant is that Smt. S. Gupta Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sri Ganganagar, respondent No. 3 came to be transferred from Bhatinda to Sri Ganganagar on 16.04.2001 on the ground of public inte...
A.M. Gurav and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-22-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ382CAT
1. The applicants in this O. A. are challenging the order dated 22.10.2001 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Solapur and further order dated 18/22.4.2002 by which the representations of the applicants have been rejected in regard to their seniority as Diesel Assistants and consequential seniority as Goods Driver and Senior Goods Driver.2. The applicants were selected as Apprentice Diesel Assistants in response to Employment Notice No. 07/89 by the Railway Recruitment Board. At the time, the selection took place, the pay scale of apprentice Diesel Assistant was Rs. 950-1,500. According to the letter of appointment, the applicants were required to undergo one year's training as apprentice Diesel Assistants. After which they were to be absorbed as Diesel Assistants against working post. The applicants have placed a copy of letter dated 18.5.1992 by which one of the applicants Shri Y.K. Ramesh Babu was informed about his selection pursuant to the recommendation by the Railway Recr...
Rajhuns Upadhyaya, Member, Board Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ47CAT
1. The applicant seeks direction to the respondents to give him promotion in the Super Time Scale of IAS w.e.f. 22.1.98, the date on which other members of the service including the officers junior to him of 1981 batch were given promotion, with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that the remarks/action against law of the land to downgrade the APARs of the applicant since 1993-94 should be set aside.2. The applicant is a member of All India Service (IAS) and after completing the requisite period of service he was granted Senior Scale in the year 1985. He was promoted to the Selection Grade of IAS w.e.f.1.7.94 vide order dated 31.12.94 in accordance with the criteria provided under Rule 2-A of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 (for short, Pay Rules, 1954). It is averred that as no adverse remarks were ever entered in the APARs of the applicant, no such remarks have been communicated to him.It is stated that to the knowledge of the applicant in his APAR for ...
Mahesh Chandra Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ24CAT
1. The applicant was Executive Engineer during the period 5.9.92 to 22.1.94 at PWD Division No. VI of Delhi Administration. At that time, construction work of Master Plan Road No. 43 was in progress. The work was completed sometimes in the month of November, 1993. The Final Bill of the work was prepared during the tenure of the applicant. The applicant, on attaining superannuation age, retired from government service on 31.7.95.2. After his retirement a charge-sheet was served upon the applicant vide memorandum dated 1.7.97, wherein it was alleged that the applicant as Executive Engineer did not test check the levels recorded for payment of earth work against item No. 1 (of SH: 1) in 7th Running Account Bill and failed to take note of sudden and substantial increase in the quantity of earth work for payment against the said item No. 1, with the result that the fictitious levels recorded by Shri O.P. Beri, Jr. Engineer, remained undetected, thereby leading to an over payment of Rs. 8,5...
Naresh K. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Nov-20-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ229CAT
1. The applicant in this case has come up to the Tribunal seeking reliefs as follows-- (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to call for the records of the case and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity, be pleased to order and direct the Respondents to implement the advice as tendered by the CVC in the normal way, i.e. as received on or about 8.7.2002. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to declare that the action of the Respondents in sending back the case of the applicant to CVC is biased and be pleased to quash the same and order to close the subsequent proceedings. (c) Any other or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case be passed.2. When the case was heard for admission on the initial date, interim orders were made to the effect that the Respondents are restrained from taking any action on the basis of second CVC report, if the said report is in respect...
M. Ayyanna Vs. the Chairman, Institute of Hotel
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Nov-18-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ262CAT
1. The applicant in the above application has sought for the quashing of his termination order dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also of the appellate order dated 10.8.2001 and for a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement.2. The brief facts as mentioned by the applicant are that vide appointment order dated 20.2.91, the applicant was appointed as maintenance Foreman-cum-care taker (Annexure A-1) and the applicant reported for duty on 1.3.91 (Annexure A-2) and had been discharging his duties efficiently thereafter. On 13.7.99, a notice was issued by the Vice Principal of the Institute requiring each student to pay a sum of Rs. 200 towards refundable deposit towards the locker facilities to be provided to the students to keep their belongings and a copy of the notice was sent to the applicant to collect the same (Annexure A-3). As there was no instructions given as t...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »