Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court February 2002 Judgments

Wasudeo Dattatreya Adke Vs. Chief Post Master General and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ129CAT

1. The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant since 18.10.1966 and was placed in TBOP scale (i.e. grade II) with effect from 31.1.1983.Since the applicant was initially appointed on 18.10.1996, he was to be promoted to BCR Postal Assistant Grade (i.e. Grade III) on completion of 26 years of service with effect from 18.10.1992 as per the BCR scheme i.e., he ought to have been considered by the DPC on 1.1.1993 and promoted thereafter. But the applicant was actually given promotion to BCR grade (Grade III) with effect from 1.1.2000. Hence the applicant has filed the present O.A challenging the said order of promotion to BCR grade dated 8.8.2000, with effect from 1.1.2000 instead of his actual eligibility for such promotion with effect from 18.10.1992 as per the scheme on completion of 26 years of service. (a) hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the present case date of BCR extended to this applicant under the impugned order bearing No. STA/4-3/ BCR/Jan 2000 dtd. 8.9.2000, A...

K.S. Vasan Vs. the Commandant and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ18CAT

1. The applicant was initially appointed as Draughtsman Grade IV ect from 20.2.1964 in the scale of Rs. 110-180, promoted to grade III.Later on both the scales of pay of Draughtsman Grade III and Grade II were merged to one common scale of pay of Rs. 150-280. From 1.1.1973 on implementation of the recommendation of the III Pay Commission the scale of pay of Draughtsman in Central Government was equated to Rs. 330-560, which was further revised/equated to Rs. 1,200-2,040. The Government of India, Ministry of Defence, revised the pay scale of the Draughtsman on par with the pay scale of Draughtsmen in CPWD, and issued circular dated 15.9.1995 (Annexure A-1) and accordingly the circular for revision of pay scale was issued by the Air Headquarters vide letter dated 18.3.1996 (Annexure A-2). The benefit of revised pay scale was also given to the applicant and his pay scale was also revised notionally with effect from 13.5.1982 and actually from 1.11.1983; The applicant was also given next ...

Akshaya Kumar Derashri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

1. In the field of service jurisprudence, the disputes relating to seniority have acquired notoriety. In the present case, the dispute travelled more than once upto the Apex Court. The clear mandate dated 22.11.1986 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 306 of 1988- All India Federation of Central Excise Etc.v. Union of India and Ors., 1997(2) SLJ 69 (SC), has been misunderstood, misinterpreted and misapplied by the respondent department, giving rise to further litigation. With these preliminary observations, we proceed to narrate the wood cut profile of the case.2. The applicant, Akshaya Kumar Derashri, who was initially recruited as Appraiser of Customs, was promoted as Assistant Collector (now re-designated as Assistant Commissioner) Group 'A' vide order dated 30.11.1979, copy of which is Annexure A/A1. He was subsequently promoted from Junior Time Scale (Grade VI) to the Senior Time Scale (Grade V) of the Indian Customs and Central Excise Service Group 'A' pursuant...

E.P. Joy Vs. the Chief Staff Officer (P and A)

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ213CAT

1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by A-2 order dated 20.4.98 of the first respondent imposing upon him the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for six months and A-4 order dated 29.12.98 of the second respondent as Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal and confirming the penalty imposed on him. He sought the following reliefs through this O.A.: (a) call for the records leading upto Annexure A-4 and quash Annexures A-2 and A-4. (b) declare that the applicant is not guilty of charges II and V shown in Annexure A-1. (c) direct the respondents to give promotion to the applicant to HS-I notionally w.e.f. 6.4.1995, with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant was a Mechanic Highly Skilled-II in the Naval Air Craft Yard (NAY for short) under the respondents. He was one of the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) IV Level member of HQ. Southern Naval Command. During 1994 he was the Secretary of the NAY Unit Works Committe...

Shiv Kumar Vs. Govt. of National Capital

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ90CAT

1. This is the second round of litigation, as the applicant had earlier filed O. A. 2189/1998 which was disposed of by Tribunal's order dated 2.11.2000. In this order, the impugned appellate authority's order dated 11.6.1998 was quashed and set aside and the case was remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing to the applicant. In pursuance of the Tribunal's order, the appellate authority has passed the order dated 26.3.2001 which has been impugned in the present application.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was dealt with departmen-tally on the grounds that he had submitted a wrong and bogus verification report on a passport enquiry relating to one Shri Tejveer Singh Shergill. It was alleged that he had submitted his report confirming the stay of the applicant for more than two years in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. On re-verification, the respondents have stated that it has been prima facie established that the a...

Chandan Chakraborty and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ245CAT

1. The short question that falls for decision in this O.A. is whether the applicants (43 in number), who are working as Data Entry Operators under the respondents and who have not been extended the benefit of revised scale of pay of Rs. 1350-2200/- w.e.f. 1.1.86 whereas the same was granted to the similarly situated employees pursuant to the decisions of different Benches of the Tribunal including the Calcutta Bench, can be denied similar relief simply on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in filing the O.A.? It is, therefore, to be seen whether the principle of law on this issue is sufficient to refuse the relief in favour of the applicants and whether such refusal will amount to injustice to them.The applicants were initially recruited as Operators in the Directorate of Census Operations, West Bengal in the year 1982-84. These posts were later redesignated as Data Entry Operators, Gr. B. The applicants' case is that they have been given revised pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200...

Gyan Prakash, Ies and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ319CAT

1. This case has been remitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.7.2001, setting aside the earlier order passed by the Tribunal dated 5.12.1994 for reconsideration and redisposal of the O.A. on merits.2. The applicants in the present O.A. have impugned the seniority list issued by the respondents dated 20.8.1986 which is the seniority list of Grade-I and Grade-II officers of the Indian Economic Service (IES) as on 1.8.1986. The applicants state that they had made representations against this seniority list to which they received no reply. By Notification dated 16.3.1988, officers of IES were promoted to Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) which, according to the applicants, was based on the impugned seniority list of Grade-I officers issued on 20.8.1986. According to the applicants, the wrong fixation of their seniority in the impugned seniority list had greatly prejudiced their service interests and denied them promotion to higher grades in comparison with direct recru...

T.M. Somarajan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ225CAT

1. The grievance of the applicant in this O.A. is with regard to the unresolved anomaly in his pay fixation on appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS for short) Cadre from the Kerala State Police Service (SPS for short). The applicant, therefore prays, inter-alia, for the following reliefs: (i) Call for the records leading to Annexures A1 and A2 and set aside the same. (ii) Issue a direction to the respondents to fix the basic pay of the applicant in the post of Superintendent of Police (IPS Cadre) at Rs. 4500 + personal pay of Rs. 400 with effect from 9.12.1995 and disburse the arrears of salary due to the applicant, (iii) To declare that the applicant is entitled to have his pay fixed in the IPS Cadre on the basis of the pay drawn by him in the non-IPS Cadre as a confirmed Superintendent of Police applying the provisions contained in Section I of Schedule II of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules without giving effect to the unreasonable definition of higher sc...

Rajbir Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ297CAT

1. Challenge in this O.A. is directed at the action of the respondents, reducing retrospectively w.e.f. 1.1.96, the pay scale of the applicants from Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs. 4500-7000/-.2. Heard S/Shri G.D. Bhandari and A.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the applicants and respondents respectively.3. The applicants (57 of them) are working as Chargeman and Sr.Chargeman (Technical Staff) in Army Ordnance Corps. On the recommendations of Dev Nath Committee, some restructuring in the grades of technical staff had been introduced. This was followed by the introduction of a four tier grade structure, adopted by the Fourth Pay Commission. However, in the respondents' organisation two categories of Chargeman had been combined to one grade of Rs. 1400-2300/- instead of Rs. 1400-2300/- and 1600-2660. This was contested by the applicants in their representation before the Fifth Central Pay Commission, which recommended for the adoption of 'uniform four grade structure' in all organisations. They ...

Miss Anju Nigam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ18CAT

1. By this O.A. under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed to quash the order dated 18.4.94, 26.5.94 (Annexures-5 and 6), by which the claim of the applicant for pay protection has been rejected. She has also prayed to quash para, 4 of the O.M. dated 7.8.1989 (Annexure-5). A direction has been prayed to respondents to grant pay protection to the applicant counting her service rendered in the State Bank of India from 1.10.1985 to 13.5.1989 under the O.M.dated 7.8.1989.2. The facts in short giving rise to this application are that the applicant initially joined as Probationary Officer in the main branch of the State Bank of India, Kanpur and served there from 1.10.1985 to 13.5.1989. While she was serving as Probationary Officer, she with the permission of the Bank authorities appeared in the Civil Services Examination 1987, conducted by Union Public Service Commission. She was selected for I.A.S. (Allied) and she joined the Department of Posts on 15.5.1989 as India...