Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court February 2003 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.
Ashish Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Feb-28-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ331CAT
1. The applicant is the son of late Shri Madho Prasad Sharma, who was working as Jamedar in the Office of the Railway Mail Service, Jaipur and died on 30.6.94, while in service. The applicant made an application to the respondents for providing him employment on compassionate grounds. His application was rejected vide communication dated 7.3.2001 (Annex. A-1) in the O.A.2. The respondents have come out with the case that the Circle Selection Committee considered the case of the applicant, as per the instructions contained in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs OM dated 9.10.98, but did not find him in indigent circumstances and therefore rejected his application for compassionate appointment. It is further stated that the object of giving compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis and now after the crisis is over the applicant is not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds. It is also stated that the appointment on comp...
T.N. Mahaswamy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ323CAT
1. The applicant who had been working as Divisional Engineer on local officiating basis in Karwar Telecom Circle and reverted to substantive post of Sub Divisional Engineer and on the same day placed under suspension pending contemplation of disciplinary enquiry, has filed the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and prayed for the following reliefs: In view of the facts mentioned in paragraph 4 above, the applicant prays for the following relief: Pleased to call for records and proceeds relating to the case on hand maintained at the level of R-4, R-5 and R~6 and peruses the same (a) Quash the order-bearing No. STAFF/3-11/Offtng./2002 dated 22.8.2002, Ann-A10 passed by R-4 authority and order bearing No. X.3/GENL/2002-03/IV/3 dated 22.8.2002, Annexurc A-11 passed by Respondent No. 6 herein after holding the same as excessive acts of the authorities concerned in the facts and circumstances of the present case. (b) Direct the respondents to restore th...
Shri Mukhtiyarahmed Chundrigar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2005)(115)SLJ274CAT
1. The applicant who is working as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) under the respondents is aggrieved on account of issue of a charge-sheet to him vide memo dated 21.2.2002 (Annexure A-5) and has prayed that the same be quashed and set aside.2. According to the applicant while he was working as Income Tax Officer (ITO) in Ward 6(1) Ahmedabad from 11.10.1991 to May, 1993 after having been transferred to Modasa the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT) Ahmedabad invited the Inspection Division of CBD, New Delhi to carry out the inspection of the work done by him for the above period without issuing a show cause notice to him. He submitted his explanation on 16.8.1995 to the Inspection report of the CBD, New Delhi dated 12/13.4.1994. Meanwhile he was promoted as Assistant CIT in May, 1994 and as DCIT on 1.10.1997. He was however served with a charge-sheet dated 21.12.2002 to which he replied on 9.7.2002. An I.O. was appointed vide order dated 24.10.2002. Aggrieved by the issue of the...
Asi Chottey Lal Vs. Commissioner of Police and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ93CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order issued by the respondents dated 28.5.1999 by which his name has been removed from the secret list of persons of doubtful integrity w.e.f. 29.12.1998. According to Mr.Bhaskar Bhardwaj, learned Counsel, this action of removing the applicant's name should have been done w.e.f. 21.5.1992 instead of 29.12.1998, as ordered by the respondents.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was issued a charge-sheet by issuing a summary of allegations on 4.6.1992 but his name was brought on secret list of persons of doubtful integrity vide order dated 28.5.1999. The respondents have stated that this was done on the basis of the Departmental inquiry ordered against the applicant by DCP/East District order dated 16.4.1992. The Departmental inquiry was pending till the decision of the criminal case pending against one SI, Manoj Pant on the same charges. The respondents have submitted that accordingly the applicant's name continued in the ...
S.R. Arya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ222CAT
1. In this application, the applicant has impugned the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Presidential order dated 10.6.2002 which has been passed in furtherance of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 29.8.2001.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant, who was a Development Officer in the office of respondents, was prosecuted on a bribery charge and was convicted and sentenced by the Special Court to two years rigourous imprisonment (RI) and a fine of Rs. 2000 vide judgment/order dated 23.12.1995. He had filed Criminal Appeal No.247/95 against this order and had obtained stay vide order dated 27.12.1995, which had stayed the operation of the sentence. He was given a notice by the respondents and was proceeded against and dismissed from service vide order dated 16.10.2000 passed by the President in exercise of power under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, (hereafter referred to as "the Rules"). This order had been challenged by the applican...
Sunil Ranjan Mondal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-26-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ46CAT
1. The applicant, who is working as Executive Engineer (Civil)-I in the All India Radio, Calcutta, has filed this O.A. praying for the following relief:-- (A) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the Memorandum of charge sheet bearing No. C-140Il/4/98-Vig(II) dated 16.11.99 (Annexure-A hereto) (B) Alternatively, the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondents to complete the entire DA proceedings within a time bound programme as may be specified by it with a default Clause on account of long delay of the entire matter.2. The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant joined service under the respondents as Jr. Engineer (Civil) in 1972 and promoted as Asst. Engineer in 1980. He was further promoted as Executive Engineer on 5.4.1989. He joined the Calcutta office of AIR on 6.4.89. It is his case that on 1.12.99 while he was working as Surveyor of Works (C), All India Radio, New Delhi, he received a charge-memo dated 16.11.99 vide Annexure-...
Ashwani Kumar and ors. Vs. Divisional Railway Manager,
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Feb-25-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ223CAT
1. By this O.A. under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants, who are 12 in number, have prayed to quash the order dated 30.11.2000 (Annexure-2) by which the claim of the applicants for empanelment in the panel dated 3.2.1990 has been rejected.2. The facts, in short, giving rise to this application, are that applicants were engaged as Casual Labourers in the Office of Chief Controller, Northern Railway, Allahabad on different dates before 1.5.1988. They had already completed 120 days and were eligible for absorption on regular basis for which purpose proceedings were initiated by publishing the lists of eligible Casual Labourers on 23.12.1988, 13.2.1989 and 25.7.1989. In the aforesaid three lists, names of all those Casual Labourers, who had completed 120 days prior to 1.5.1988, were included. The names of applicants were mentioned in the list dated 23.12.1988, screening test took place between August, 1989 to October, 1989 then apanel of 394 persons, who wer...
Smt. Sushma Soni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ159CAT
(i) the impugned order dated 28.11.2000 (Annex. A. 1) be quashed and set aside. (ii) the respondents be directed to withdraw the order of dismissal dated 6.10.98 (Annex. A.2). (iii) the applicant be held entitled for appointment on compassionate ground on suitable post as a dependent of a deceased Government employee and she may further be held entitled to get family pension, death cum gratuity amount and the amount of reimbursement of medical bills. (iv) any other appropriate order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal thinks just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case even the same has not been specifically prayed for but which is necessary to ensure ends of justice may kindly also be passed in favour of the applicant. The undisputed facts of the case are these. The applicant's husband Shri Bhagwan Singh Soni was a Customs Inspector posted at Jalore. In the year 1982 a criminal case was registered against him under Section 302 IPC. It was alleged that he fired shot ...
Bhagat Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ353CAT
1. Under the recommendations of the Punjab Pay Commission, an "Assured Career Progression Scheme" (for short 'ACP') came into being. It was adopted by Chandigarh Administration vide letter dated 7.12.1998 (Annexure A-2) whereby every employee has been made entitled to second proficiency step up increment on completion of 16 years of service provided his over all service record is adjudged as 'good.' A clarificatory letter dated 10.1.2000 (Annexure A-3) was issued to remove doubts about the expression of "over all service record is adjudged as good" as follows: ".....2. This matter has been considered in consultation with the Department of Finance and it is clarified that the term overall service record is adjudged as 'Good' will mean that 50% reports should be 'Good' and above including atleast two of the last three reports. The rest of the reports may be satisfactory/ average," 2. The applicant Bhagat Ram, who is senior clerk in the office of the Inspector General of Police, Police D...
P. Hari Kumar and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Feb-21-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ1CAT
1. The applicants in both these cases have challenged their non-selection for appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service for the year 2002 for the A.P. State and sought for a declaration that the said action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and for a direction; to the respondents to reconsider their claims properly and order for inclusion of their names in the select list prepared by the Select Committee for appointment by promotion as officers as Indian Police Service for the year 2002 and on that basis to direct the first respondent to declare the applicants to have been appointed by promotion to the I.P.S. with effect from 2.8.2002 with all consequential benefits, such as, year of allotment, pay fixation etc.2. The applicants in both these cases belong to 1987 batch and directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police. The applicant in O.A. No.1004/2002 is a Post Graduate in Zoology from Andhra...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
- Last »