Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court April 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.
H.R. Somappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Apr-30-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ171CAT
1. The applicant was appointed as Tradesman 'B' on 20.4.1987 in the Indian Rare Earths Ltd., Rare Materials Plant (RMP), Mysore (Govt. of India Undertaking), on application submitted by him in response to the advertisement No. nil dated 18.11,86 published in the newspaper (Annexure A-1). At the time of appointment, the applicant was asked to furnish certain informations in the proforma regarding particulars pertaining to age, qualification, religion, etc. and these proformas was submitted by the applicant on three different dates, i.e., 20.11.86, 3.3.87 and 6.4.87 respectively, (Annexures A-2, A-3 and A-4).The qualification as prescribed in the advertisement was SSLC or equivalent (I Class) with science subjects. The applicant served in the said company (RMP) upto 31.1.91. The RMP, Mysore was taken over by the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) vide order dated 7.2.91 and placed under the administrative control of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, (BARC) Mumbai which is the constituent un...
Avtar Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ242CAT
1. The short common question which arises for consideration and determination in all these 25 original applications is whether the order by which the respondent Income-Tax department has terminated the services of each one of the applicants on the ground that they, secured appointment on the basis of forged nomination letters purported to have been issued by the Staff Selection Commission, (for short Commission) is liable to be interfered with and quashed by this Tribunal primarily on the basis that the offending order has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the applicants and that there was no foundation to conclude that the nomination letters were forged, fictitious, fake and bogus.2. The above controversy has fallen for our consideration in the back-drop of the facts that at the instance of the Income-tax department, posts of Lower Division Clerks, Upper Divisions clerks, Stenographer Gr. D. and Inspectors were advertised by the Commission.After receipt of the a...
Sher Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Apr-29-2003
Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ229CAT
1. Shri Sher Singh has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and has sought the following reliefs: "(i) That by an appropriate writ, order or directions the impugned order No. 1278577/SK/DO-78/A2/Civ/CA-6/16 dated 31,1.92 (Annexure A/1), impugned order No. 1278577/SK/Diep/228/Civ./CA-6 dated 11.6.99 (Annexure A/2), impugned order No. 1276577/SK/Susp/235/Civ./CA-6 dated 20.9.99 (Annexure A/3, impugned order No. 1278577/SK/Susp/ 243/Civ/CA-6 dated 10.2.2000 (Annexure A/4) and impugned order No. A/24321/25/OS-BC(ii) dated 19.6.2001 (Annexure A/5) be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside by the Hon'ble Tribunal as if the same were never passed against the applicant. (ii) That the respondents may be directed to refund the whole amount recovered from salary of the applicant in view of the impugned orders along with interest @ 12% p.a. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to pay and allowances for the period of suspension along with ...
K. Prakasha Vs. the Divisional Safety Officer and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Apr-17-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ129CAT
1. Sri K. Prakasha, Pointsman Grade-I, Kyatsandra Railway Station in the present O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks quashing of charge memo dated 28th September, 1998 (Annexure-A4), order dated 3.3.1999 (Annexure-A1) imposing penalty of dismissal from service and orders dated 21.6.1999 (Annexure-A2) 17.11.2000 (Annexure-A3) passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities respectively upholding the said penalty order dated 3.3.1999.2. Vide charge memo dated 28th September, 1998 it was alleged that the applicant, Gateman while on duty at level crossing Gate No. 35 C at KM 62/3-4 between HHL and KIAT station on 6.1.1998 failed to close the gate properly and secure the lifting barrier of the LC which is the normal position of the gate and deserted the place of duty without permission, keeping the gate open for the road traffic without even planting danger flags in centre of the track on either side of the LC which resulted in the light engine WDM 2A/ ...
Dr. H.S. Srinivas Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ368CAT
1. In this application, the applicant is seeking to declare the third proviso to Rule 7(1)(a)(ii) of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 as ultra vires of the Constitution and to strike down the same and consequently hold that the applicant is entitled to get his pay fixed at Rs. 22,400 per month with effect from 1.1.96 in the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400 and to direct the respondents to refix the pay of the applicant with effect from 1.1.96 at Rs. 22400 per month and cause payment of arrears on account of such refixation and thereafter to cause refixation of the pay and pensionary benefits.2. The brief facts are that the applicant who was a member of the Indian Railway Service of Engineers (IRSE), was promoted to the senior administrative grade (SAG) on 18,4.85 (Annexure A-4). Upon introduction of the pay scale of the Fourth Central Pay Commission (CPC) with effect from 1.1.86, the pay of the applicant was fixed at the minimum of the SAG of Rs. 5900-6700. On reaching the maxim...
N. Vittal Rai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Apr-16-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ217CAT
1. In this application, the applicant is seeking a direction to the 4th respondent to include the name of the applicant at the appropriate place in the seniority list of Motor Vehicle (MV) Drivers of Mysore Division, as the applicant's lien is maintained as Driver in Mysore Division, as on 1.12.96 and publish the seniority list and for grant of consequential benefits of promotion, fixation of pay and arrears of pay based on such seniority.2. The brief facts are that the applicant was appointed as temporary ELR Khalasi on 30.9.65. He was promoted as Lorry Driver and worked as such from 11.5.76 to 16.4.78 and was appointed as Gangman with effect from 17.4.78 in the scale of Rs. 200-250 (Anncxure A-1). The applicant was promoted as ad hoc driver in the scale of 260-400 with effect from 22.5.78 (Annexure A-2) and subsequently promoted as ad-hoc lorry driver in the scale of Rs. 1,200-1,800 vide order dated 7.6.89 (Annexure A-5).Thereafter, the applicant was fitted as driver in the scale of...
Sadhna Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ254CAT
1. The applicant seeks quashing of order dated 6.2.2003 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (K. V.S.) Lucknow (respondent No. 3)(Annexure A-1) and also Memo dated 10.8.02 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (K.V.S.) Lucknow (respondent No. 5) (Annexure - 2 to this O.A.).2. The applicant while working as Librarian at K.V.S. Rae Bareli, was served with a charge-sheet on 2.1.02 under rule 14 of the C.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1965 (in short the Rules of 1965). The charges levelled against the applicant are as under: (a) that the applicant while functioning as Librarian at Rae Bareli during the period 2000-2002 refused to receive the final communications and letters given by the Principal. (b) that the applicant during the period 2001-02 did not hand over the key of the Library and accordingly committed a gross misconduct. (c) that the applicant submitted representation directly to the higher authorities.2. One Shri A.K. Varshney, a retired Assistant Commissione...
Satyendra Jeet Singh, Addl. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Apr-07-2003
Reported in: (2004)(1)SLJ54CAT
1. The core question involved in the present Original Application for consideration and determination is whether the Union Public Service Commission (for short UPSC) is obliged to convene a Review Departmental Promotion Committee (for short DPC) on the request of the Government of India which has found some merits in the representation made by an Officer who could not reach the bench mark and, therefore, found ineligible for consideration to a promotional post by the earlier DPC.This controversy has come to be raised in the back-drop of the following facts.2. As a result of Combined Civil Service Examinations of the year 1980, the applicant Shri Satyendra Jeet Singh was selected and appointed as Assistant Collector in the Customs and Central Excise Group 'A' Service, and was given the label of 1981 batch. The conditions of service of the applicant are governed by the Central Excise Service Group 'A' Rules. 1987. On account of various long drawn rounds of litigation right upto the Apex...
Sudhir Sharma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Decided on: Apr-01-2003
Reported in: (2003)(3)SLJ251CAT
1. Since both the O.As. involve common question of facts and law, they are being decided by a common order.2. The above O.As. have been filed for quashing of the impugned transfer orders contained as Annexure 1 in both the O.As, Transfer order in respect of applicant in O.A. No. 154/03 is dated 11.3.2003 transferring the applicant from Doordarshan Kendra Lucknow to Doordarshan Kendra Patna and the applicant in O.A. No. 155/03 has been transferred from Doordarshan Kendra Lucknow to Doordarshan Kendra Raipur vide order dated 5.3.03.3. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction because the applicant is an employee of Prasar Bharti Broadcasting Corporation of India (in short the Prasar Bharti) established under the Prasar Bharti (Broadcasting Corporation of India) Act, 1990 (Act 25 of 1990) (in short the Prasar Bharti Act). Since the Prasar Bharti is an independent body and not the department of Govt. of India,...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›