Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court September 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.
Amitabha Bhattacharya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-30-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ212CAT
1. The applicant has filed this O.A. praying for a direction to the respondents to grant him Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG) with effect from 1.2.96 instead of 1.3.98.The applicant joined service as Jr. Scientific Officer on 16.2.71 and was posted at Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory, Hyderabad under the control of Defence Research Development Organisation (DRDO), Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. He got several promotions and finally came to be promoted in the Junior Administrative Grade (Non-Functional Selection Grade) in the Defence Quality Assurance Service in the scale of Rs. 14,300-18,300/- w.e.f. 1.3.98.According to the applicant, Defence Quality Assurance Service (DQAS) cadre to which he belongs, consists of seven disciplines, viz. (1) Armaments, (2) Military Explosive, (3) Metallurgy, (4) Chemistry, (5) Gentex, (6) Electronics and (7) Vehicles/ Engineering. These disciplines have been divided into two viable groups having technical/ functional similarities. The fi...
K. Balaji Vs. Integral Coach Factory
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Sep-27-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ130CAT
1. In this case the applicant has challenged the communication dated 24.10.2000 vide Annexure-A8 issued by the respondent. Integral Coach Factory, Chennai. In this circumstance, the respondents have raised the objection in their reply statement that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. Therefore, we heard the case regarding the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.2. The Counsel for the respondent submitted that vide Annexure-A2.applications were invited for the post of Office Clerk Grade-II/Accounts Clerk at Chennai by an office situated in Chennai.Even the impugned endorsement vide Annexure-A8, treating the applicant medically not fit for the post is issued in Chennai and as such this Tribunal has no jurisdiction. As against this argument, the argument of the Counsel for the applicant is that the applicant applied for the post from Bangalore as a resident of Bangalore; and even the impugned communication vide Annexure-A8 is sent to the applicant on his Bangalore address. Therefore, a part of...
K. Srinivasa Murthy Vs. Sr. Divisional Commercial
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Sep-26-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ144CAT
1. The applicant in the present application sought for a relief of setting aside the order of removal passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Hubli bearing No. H/P. 27/III/95/1297 dated 29.6.1999, which is confirmed by the appellate authority by order No.H/P. 86/III/99/KSM dated 12.1.2001 rejecting the appeal dated 23.8.1999 filed by the applicant by declaring the said orders as arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 311(1), 311(2), 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India and to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service treating him as in continuous service from the date of removal with all consequential benefits, such as, arrears of salary, allowances, promotions from the date when his juniors were promoted with all monetary benefits.2. The applicant while working as Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk was served with a Charge-memoalleging that he remained absent unauthorisedly from 1.6.1995 to 17.12.1995 without prior sanctio...
P.K. Somasekharan Nair and ors. Vs. Chief General Manager (Telecom)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Sep-25-2002
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ346CAT
1. This Original Application has been filed by applicants, five in number, seeking to call for records leading to Annexure A-11 order dated 9.5.2000 and set aside the same to the extent it promoted the officials who got promoted to Telecom Engineering Services Group-B as per A8 overlooking the seniority of the applicants and to declare that the persons like respondents 5 to 7 who got promoted to Telecom Engineering Service Group-B on regular basis as per A8 memorandum dated 20.5.93 were not entitled to seniority and rank in TES Group-B on the basis of their promotion as per A1 which became infructuous on their declining promotion. They sought the following reliefs through this O.A. (i) to call for the records leading to Annexure A11 and to set aside the same in to the extent it promotes the officers who got promoted to Telecom Engineering Service Group-B as per Annexure A8 overlooking the seniority of the applicant. (ii) to declare that persons like respondents 5 to 7 who got promoted...
Kamal Kanti Naskar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Sep-24-2002
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ191CAT
1. The applicant was a member of the Indian Administrative Service. He retired from service from 1.9.95 on attaining the age of superannuation. After his retirement, the Chief Secretary to the Government of West Bengal issued memorandum dated 29.10.96 communicating the applicant that the Governor had proposed to hold an inquiry under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 against him. In paragraph No. 2 of the said memo it was further communicated that sanction of the Central Government under Sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of the proviso to Rule 6(i) of All India Service (DCRB) Rules, 1958 had been obtained. On receipt of the said memorandum the applicant submitted his representation on 6.12.96 to the Chief Secretary stating the Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 was not applicable to him as he had already retired from the service.2. The case for the applicant is that the provision of All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 196...
Pawan Kumar Shrivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-20-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ293CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2000 (Annexure-A-6).By this impugned order, the appellate authority has reduced the penalty from removal from service to that of stoppage of annual increments for a period of six year from the date the applicant is reinstated as Upper Division Clerk. This impugned order further states that the absence from 24.7.1992 to the date of reinstatement will be treated as dies-non. The applicant is further aggrieved by order dated 4.1.2001 (Annexure-A-9) whereby the respondents have rejected the applicant's request dated 3.1.2001 (Annexure-A-8). By this impugned order (Annexure-A-9) the applicant has been informed that the competent authority had never permitted him to enrol/register with the Bar Association as an Advocate. Therefore, the applicant could not be permitted to join duty without cancellation of enrolment/registration as an Advocate.2. The applicant while posted as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Director, Regional Medical Re...
Balmukund Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-19-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ370CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the punishment order dated 21.9.1993 of compulsory retirement from Government service and the appellate order dated 27.4.1994 and revisional order dated 17.6.1996 which were passed in pursuance to the issue of charge-sheet dated 8.1.1992 (Annexure-A-1). Therefore, he has asked for quashing of these orders of charge-sheet, punishment order, appellate order and revisional order; and reinstatement in service with back wages along with interest.2. The applicant was appointed as Postman on 26.1.1969. In due course, he was promoted to the Postal Assistant Cadre with effect from 1.9.1978 and at the relevant time he was working as Assistant Treasurer (Stamp), Indore, Yashwant Road City Head Office with effect from 19.6.1991.2.1 As per charge-sheet dated 8.1.1992 (Annexure-A-1), three articles of charges were framed against the applicant. The first charge was that the applicant "kept the stamp balances short by Rs. 20,000/- which was noticed on 24.9.1991. Shri ...
Ravindra Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: Sep-16-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ119CAT
1. The applicant of this O.A. has prayed that the order dated 9th November, 2001 as contained in Annexure No. 4 be quashed and further that the applicant be provided with all service benefits to which he is entitled.2. The relief claimed in this O.A. is for issue of directions to the respondents to grant annual increments to the applicant to which he is lawfully entitled.3. Since the issues involved in both the O.As. are similar, both the O.As. are disposed of by common and consolidated order for the sake of convenience.4. Pleadings on record have been perused and learned Counsel for the parties have been heard.5. The applicant was appointed on 2nd December, 1992 as Lower Division Clerk (in short LDC) in the office of the Director of Census Operations, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow on compassionate grounds under the dying and harness rules. The age of the applicant on the date of his appointment was 35 years and 4 months. The appointment letter dated 2nd December, 1992 contained a recital to...
islamkhan H. Pathan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Sep-11-2002
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ155CAT
1. The applicant is a retired P & T employee. His claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected by the C.P.M.G. Ahmedabad on the ground that though reimbursement is admissible under C.G.H.S. Rules, the same are not applicable to the Postal Pensioners and that Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules are not extended to the pensioners. The applicant retired as an Internal Financial Adviser and after retirement had settled down in Ahmedabad. On dated 3.10.2002 he had intimated the Chief Postmaster General that he had suffered heart attack on 17.5.94 and again on 6.5.99. His Cardiologist had advised him for Angiography and if necessary to undergo bypass surgery. He also informed the authorities that he intended to undergo Angiography in Government recognised hospital and asked for medical advance of Rs. 10,000. He was however informed that CS (MA) Rules are not applicable to him and as such advance would not be payable to him. The applicant has there-alter got the Angiography d...
Ram NaraIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and 2 ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Sep-10-2002
Reported in: (2003)(2)SLJ174CAT
1. Through this O.A. the applicant seeks quashment of the orders dated 14.6.2001 (Annex. A.1) 25.3.88 (Annex. A-2) passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28.3.89 (Annex. A-3) passed by the respondent No. 2. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount which has been recovered from him pursuant to the order Annex.A-2.2. The relevant facts arc these. The applicant was employed as Driver 'B' in the office of the 3rd respondent. He was served with a charge-sheet for imposing major penalty vide communication dated 3.10.86. The allegations made against the applicant were that he was co-driver of the engine No. 6272 YDM-4 Train No. 509 and he was responsible for starting the train without authority passing starter No. 26 of road No. 5 routing starter No. 101 which was 197.20 meter away from the starter signal and stopped the train at a distance of 476.60 meter. The applicant in his reply denied the charges. The enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer d...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »