Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court March 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.
Revathi Murthy and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-21-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ207CAT
1. The applicants who are the Staff Artists/Artists of All India Radio, Bangalore, have filed these applications challenging the order/Office Memorandum bearing No. 6/7/97-SVIII dated 13.1.2000 (Annexure A-3) issued by the third respondent clarifying that the applicant are not entitled to ad hoc bonus from the year 1997-98 onwards, since they are in the grade having pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500, Rs. 10,000-15,200, Rs. 12,000-16,500. The applicants were then actually in the pay scale of Rs. 6,500-10,500 and earlier as per Office Memorandum under Annexure A-1 and A-2 they were being paid ad hoc bonus. But in view of the Annexure A-3 the applicants were not paid ad hoc bonus for the year 1999-2000 onwards and ad hoc bonus paid for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 was also recovered from them. Hence they have approached this Tribunal in these O.As. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for the following reliefs: (i) Quash the impugned Office Memorandum bearing No. 6/7/...
Ramesh Chandra Mathur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ331CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order issued by the respondents dated 22.5.1995 imposing on him a penalty of 25% cut in pension otherwise payable to him for a period of five years with immediate effect. This order has been passed by the President after holding a disciplinary proceeding against the applicant under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the 1965 Rules'). The applicant retired from service of the respondents on 31.7.1994 and the impugned order has been passed by the President under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the pension Rules').2. A preliminary objection has been taken by the respondents that the O.A. is barred by limitation. The applicant has filed M.A. 76/2001 praying for condonation of delay of the period from 1.3.1991 to 2.8.2000 in filing the O.A.3. We have heard Mr. N.S. Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the respondents on the question of limita...
K.R. Rajan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Mar-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ178CAT
1. The applicant who belongs to Scheduled Caste Community was appointed as Deputy Collector in the year 1987. On completion of 8 years of service in the cadre of Deputy Collector, he became eligible to be considered for induction to the Indian Administrative Service under the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations on 31.12.95. Although the applicant's name was included in the select list of the year 1997 provisionally, as the State Government did not forward the integrity certificate, he was not appointed to the IAS on the basis of that select list. For preparation of the select list against vacancies of the year 2000, a Committee met on 26.12.2000 and a list of six officers was prepared. The applicant was at SI. No. 2 in that list.The name of the applicant was included provisionally, subject to the grant of integrity certificate. The list was approved by the UPSC on 3.5.2001. Integrity certificate of one Sri Sasidharan who was at SI.No. 6 in the list was...
Avadhesh Kumar Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ34CAT
1. The applicant has claimed appointment on compassionate grounds, on the basis of medical decategorisation.2. The applicant No. 2 Man Bahal Singh was in service of the respondents. He was medically decategorised vide Annexure-1 dated 19/20.6.92. The applicant's date of birth as per Annexure-4 is 1.4.1943. The applicant's case is that he was not offered any alternative job. Vide communication Anneiure-1 dated 25.11.79 to the Rejoinder there was no question to offer alternative employment to the applicant. Consequently, one of the dependants of the applicant No. 2, it is submitted, is entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.The applicant No. 1 Avdhesh Kumar Singh is the son of applicant No. 2.An application for appointment of applicant No. 1 on compassionate grounds was sent, but the same was rejected vide impugned letter dated 10.6.98, hence this O.A.3. The respondents' case is that the applicant No. 2 i.e. the father of applicant No. 1 was retired on medical ground on 23.8....
Partha Tapaswi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ276CAT
1. The question to be considered in this OA is whether the applicant has a right of appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the basis of his selection by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC despite the fact that new Recruitment Rules have come into force.2. The facts first. The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor under the Andaman and Nicobar Administration and he joined on 19.10.84. He was appointed as Public Prosecutor on deputation basis in the CBI w.e.f. 7.8.95 after his selection through the UPSC of a period of four years or until further orders. When the applicant was on deputation with the CBI, the Deptt. of Personnel and Training, Govt.of India issued a vacancy circular inviting applications for the post of Senior Public Prosecutor (Sr. PP) in the CBI on deputation basis or on transfer basis video Memo dated 7.9.98. The applicant having the requisite qualification and having fulfille...
P.M. Balan and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Mar-15-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ96CAT
1. As the issue involved in all these three Original Applications are the same these three O.As. were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of; O.A. No. 1309/99 are being given and are being dealt with in this order.2. Applicants two in number aggrieved by A-3 order dated 5.4.99 filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs: (i) To call for the records leading upto Annexure A3 and all further proceedings pursuant there to in filling up the vacancies of Artisan Khalasis in the Engineering Department of the Southern Railway, Palghat and quash the same. (ii) To issue a direction to the respondents to fill up the post of Artisan Khalasis from among the Non-Artisan Khalasis of the Works Branch of the Engineering Department with due regard to their seniority as Khalasis/Non-Artisan Khalasis. (iii) . To issue such as orders or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of t...
M. Ravi Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ377CAT
1. The applicant, a Technician Grade-II (Electrical), Palghat Division, Southern Railway, aggrieved by A1 penalty advice dated 26-5-98 issued by the 2nd respondent, A2 appellate order dated 3-12-98/ 5-1-99 issued by the 3rd respondent and A3 revisional order dated 25-3-99 issued by the 4th respondent filed this original Application seeking the following reliefs:- "(a) Call for the records leading to the issued of Annexures A1, A2 and A3 and quash the same, duly directing the respondent to grant the consequential benefits thereof. (c) Pass such other orders or directions as deemed just, fit and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case", 2. According to the Original Application, the applicant while working as Electrical Fitter Highly Skilled-II was issued with A4 charge memorandum dated 24.12.1997, the article of charges being as follows:- Shri M. Ravikumar, ELF/TL/HS-II/MAQ was nominated to attend the failure in the following slip coaches of 525 passenger of 25.11.97 which ...
Prokash Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-14-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ93CAT
1. The applicant, Ex-Fitter under SCW/Chitpur, has, by means of the present application, challenged the Order dt. 21.2.94 passed by the appellate authority, pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 687 of 1990 decided on 23.8.93, by which the appeal of the applicant against his removal from service was rejected.2. The service of the applicant was terminated on the ground that he assaulted one Shri A.C. Burman, Supervisor and there by causing injuries to him on account of which he had to be hospitalised for many days and even thereafter, he could not resume duty for a considerable period. The removal order was passed by the disciplinary authority after dispensing with the requirement of holding a regular enquiry under Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Rules). It may also be incidentally pointed out here that the applicant had not made any challenge to the original Order dt. 2.7.86 passed by the disci...
A.K. Agarwal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ382CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Memorandum issued by the respondents dated 9.11.2000 and order dated 8.12.2000, whereby his basic pay fixed earlier at Rs. 600 w.e.f. 21.1.1983 by order dated 16.6.1992 in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900, has been lowered to Rs. 575 + Rs. 5 (personal pay). The respondents have stated that the pay of the applicant had been erroneously fixed and accordingly the subsequent re-fixation of pay on the basis of revision of pay scale/ promotion etc., was also wrong. They have stated that the applicant's pay is, therefore, proposed to be refixed (a) in the grade of Research Assistant (RA) (Sc.) in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900 under FR 22(a)(ii), and (b) on promotion to the grade of Assistant Research Officer (ARO)(Sc.) w.e.f. 15.5.1987 under FR22(a)(i). The respondents have stated in the impugned order dated 9.11.2000, that on implementation of the recommendations of the Vth Central Pay Commission and financial upgradation w.e.f. 9.8.1999 under the Assured Car...
Dr. Bhagwat Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Mar-06-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ49CAT
1. The applicant, Dr. Bhagwat Singh, while he was posted as Senior Divisional Medical Officer at Amritsar was caught red handed on 16.02.93 in a trap which was laid by a team of CBI officers while demanding and accepting a sum of Rs. 100 as illegal gratification from one Sri Ravi Bhushan, who was at that time working as Highly Skilled Fitter Grade II, Loco Workshop, Amritsar. A criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was registered against the applicant. After investigation, a final report was submitted. It was, however, decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the applicant. The competent authority while ordering the initiation of departmental enquiry against the applicant appointed Shri Geeta Ram, CDI/CVC by invoking provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850, as contemplated under Rule 9(1) of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968--for short, the Rules of 1968, by order dated 31.10.97 (Annexure A/4).2. The statement ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »