Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 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.
Shailendra Kumar Jaiswal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ267CAT
1. This is an application under Section 19 pf the AT Act, against the purported act of the respondent authorities in not granting Islands special allowance to the applicant in terms of the memorandum dated 12.1.96 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India.2. It is averred that the applicant was offered temporary posting of Service Engineer (Mechanical), Fishery Survey of India under the Ministry of Agriculture Government of India which is in the scale of Rs. 8000-13500/- General Central Service, Group 'A' Gazetted. After accepting the offer, the applicant was asked to take charge of the post of Service Engineer (Mechanical) in the Department vide order dated 9.12.98. The applicant reported on duty in the office of the respondent No. 3 i.e., Director General, Fishery Survey of India, Marine House, Mumbai on 27.1.99. Under the directions of respondent No. 3 the applicant was directed to report of Port Blair base of Fishery Survey of India. He, therefore, joined at Port Blair.The...
Rajat Tarafder and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-12-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ153CAT
1. Four applicants have filed this OA seeking directions to the official respondents to cancei/set aside or quash the impugned order of readiness and call letters dated 16.2.2001 and 5.3.2001, Annexures 'A/5' and 'A/6' and also to call the applicants for the post of Technicians (Electrical Gr. B).2. The short facts of the case are these. The applicants are Electrical Khalasi in the scale of Rs. 2550-3200/- under Senior Section Engineer/Diesel/Baliaghata in the Sealdah Division of the Eastern Railway. They are Matriculate and have passed the relevant Fitter Trade and obtained NCVT certificate under the Apprenticeship Act, 1961. The promotional channel for the applicants is the post of Electrical Fitter which is now known as Technician (Electrical Gr. III) in the scale commencing from Rs. 3050/-.The Railway Board issued circulars dated 28.9.98 and dated 28.1.2000, wherein it was stated that the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Skilled Artisans (inc...
V.G. Pradhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ114CAT
1. The grievance of the applicant in this O.A. is to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 29.3.2000 and 16.8.2000 and to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant as on duty and not as dies non and to grant pay @ 95% in terms of Sub-rules (5), (8) of FR 54-B.2. While the applicant working as Income Tax Officer in Mumbai, inspection of his work revealed several short comings with regard to the assessment orders passed by him. After receiving his explanation and presenting the case he was placed under suspension with effect from 19.4.1984. A charge-sheet was issued to him and thereafter a regular inquiry was held and finally the disciplinary authority passed order on 28.1.1987 imposing the penalty of removal from service on the applicant. The applicant had challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 26/88 which was allowed by order dated 8.8.1991 on the ground that the copy of inquiry report had not been served to the officer. The respond...
C. Somasundaran and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-07-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ273CAT
1. The facts and the question of law involved in these cases are being similar and almost identical, the cases are being heard and disposed of by this common order. The facts of the individual cases are stated briefly as follows:- 2. The applicants 1 and 2 are holding the post of Station Master Grade II substantively and officiating as Station Master Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 on ad hoc basis. The 2nd applicant is a member of the Scheduled Caste community. From the year 1994 onwards no selection was made for promotion to the post of Station Master Grade I.Although 12 vacancies were notified on 8.3.95, the applicants were also alerted for participating in the selection process the same was not further proceeded with and the vacancies were not filled up.Subsequently, a notification was issued on 18.2.99 (A-3) for selection to 52 vacancies of Station Master Grade I by alerting 139 eligible officials. The applicants were also among them. They participated in the written ex...
Swarn Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ144CAT
1. The challenge in this OA filed by nine applicants, is directed against their non-selection as Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police in spite of their having qualified both in the written test as well as in the interview.2. This OA has been heard along with OAs No. 2606/2000, 2701/2000 and 60/2001, as all of them are directed against the same selection and a have few common points. However, separate order is being passed in respect of each OA, on account of specific facts relating to the applicant(s) concerned in each OA.3. Heard Mr. Sachin Chauhan, learned Counsel for the applicant who has present along with Mr. Sant Lal, while Mr. Vijay Pandita, learned Counsel along with Ms. Shabana appeared for the respondents.5. Shri Swarn Singh (roll number 237877) and eight others are among those who seek appointment to Delhi Police as Constables (Executive), on the basis of the recruitment test conducted. All of them had filed their applications in response to Notification issued by the Delhi Poli...
M. Balu and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Jun-05-2002
Reported in: (2003)(1)SLJ64CAT
1. This application was earlier disposed of along with O. A. Nos. 1890 of 1995 39 and 94 to 98 of 1996 vide Judgment and order dated 7th April, 1998 by dismissing the application as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicants had preferred writ Petition No.19138 of 1998 and writ Petition Nos. 20017 to 20023 of 1998 (S-CAT) before the High Court of Karnataka. It appears that on the basis of the concession made at the bar that this Tribunal had been entertaining applications against Prasar Bharati Broadcasting Corporation of India'('Corporation' for short) the order of this Tribunal has been set aside and the matter is remitted to this Tribunal for fresh decision in accordance with law. In other words., the Hon'ble High Court did not express any opinion on the issue as to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, against Prasar Bharati. Therefore, arguments were heard both on the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, as well as on the merits. First we propose to deal with the ...
N. Sivadasan Vs. Senior Supdt. R.M.S. 'Tv'
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ64CAT
1. Applicant entered service of the first respondent on 20.10.65. He was given BCR promotion on completion of 26 years on 6.11.91 by A-1 letter dated 9.10.95. The applicant submitted that he was given an accept the BCR pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 and continue in service till the age of 60 years or to accept the pay scale of Rs. 950-1400 and retire at the age of 58 years which was the normal age of retirement of employees in Group C and above at that time. The applicant exercised the option in favour of the first alternative. Accordingly by A-2 letter dated 14.9.94 his pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 825-1200 and was permitted to be in service till the age of 60. The retirement age of employees in Group C and above was increased from 58 to 60 with effect from 13.5.98 by a policy decision taken by the Government of India. By A-3 letter dated 24.2.99 third respondent's letter dated 11.2.99 doing away with the option from Group 'D' employees was circulated. Applicant claimed that with...
N.R. Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Jun-03-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ1CAT
1. The applicant, who was one of the senior members of Rajasthan Administrative Service (RAS, for short), was selected for appointment on promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS, for short) by the Selection Committee which held its meeting at Jaipur on 23.01.95. He is aggrieved on account of the denial by the respondents to promote him and the inaction exhibited by them in his matter. The applicant has, therefore, approached this Tribunal by means of the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, claiming the relief that the circular No. 14015/54/95-AIS(I) dated 12thJanuary, 1996, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, be quashed as being against the statutory provisions and the respondent No. 2, State of Rajasthan, be directed to appoint him in IAS from the select-list dated 23.01.95, hereinafter referred to as 1995 select-list.2. The promotion of the members of the State Civil Service to IAS is governed by the p...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- Next ›