Skip to content

Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court January 2004 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.

Jan 23 2004

State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh

Decided on: Jan-23-2004

Reported in: (2004)(2)SLJ311CAT

1. The controversy in this O.A. centres round the appointment of Shri Diwakar Prasad, respondent No. 2, a senior member of Indian Police Service of Himachal Pradesh Cadre (HP-68), as Additional Director in the Intelligence Bureau, Government of India, New Delhi, on deputation basis, which post he joined on 6th of March, 2003 pursuant to the Fax message dated 4th March, 2003 (Annexure A-9), sent by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, and addressed to the Chief Secretary, H.P. Circle, with a copy for information to the Director General Police, Himachal Pradesh. The Chief Secretary, Government of Himachal Pradesh sent a Fax message dated 10th March, 2003 (Annexure A-10) addressed to the Cabinet Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, with a copy to the Home Secretary, Government of India and Director Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi. Since this fax message reflects the genesis of the controversy and the stand taken by the State Government of Himachal Pradesh, i...


Jan 21 2004

K. Ganesha Vs. Department of Telecom by Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Decided on: Jan-21-2004

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ1CAT

1. Two interesting questions raised in the present application are:-(i) whether the proceeding or action initiated/taken under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 is in addition to the departmental proceedings for which procedure is prescribed under Rule 14/16 of the said Rules or alternate to it? (ii) Whether the respondents could be restrained from exercising power under Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, on the plea that based on same incident the delinquent official had already suffered departmental action earlier in time and as such later conviction and sentence recorded in the criminal proceedings would not clothe the authorities to initiate further action under the aforesaid Rule? 2. Before noticing the facts, it would be desirable to note the reliefs prayed for, which are as follows: "(a) Hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, respondents are not entitled to proceed against the applicant under Rule 19 of th...


Jan 12 2004

R.C. Yadav and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

Decided on: Jan-12-2004

Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ117CAT

1. A direct recruit Income Tax Inspector and promoted Income Tax Inspectors aggrieved with the draft seniority list dated 6.1.2003 published by the Chief Commissioner, Income Tax have filed O.As. 92/03 and 123/03 respectively. They have both amended the respective O.As. to challenge the final seniority list published during the pendency of the O.As. A common order will govern both these O.As.2. The case of the directly recruited Income Tax Inspector is that he is entitled to seniority from the date of vacancy as advised by Department of Personnel in the case of Income Tax Inspectors of Chief Commissioner I, New Delhi. In any case the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A. 2307/99 & Ors., decided on 23.2.2000 has held that direct recruits are entitled to seniority from the date of their selection by Staff Selection Commission and not from the date of their appointment. The CBDT should have issued general guidelines to implement this decision. Chief Commissioner Jaipur has finalise...


Jan 06 2004

Pratap Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur

Decided on: Jan-06-2004

Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ169CAT

1. Shri Pratap Singh has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 primarily for seeking the following reliefs: "(i) by an appropriate order or direction, the record of the case may kindly be called for; (ii) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to regularise the services of the applicant in the department looking to his long satisfactory services in the department; (iii) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of pension, commutation and other pensionary benefits to the applicant; (iv) by an appropriate order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to make payment of interest @ 12% on the delayed payment of pension to the applicant; (v) any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant." 2. We hav...


Jan 02 2004

B.L. Dholpuria and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Decided on: Jan-02-2004

Reported in: (2004)(3)SLJ312CAT

1. The grievance of the applicants is that the respondents have conducted the selection for promotion to the post of Law Assistant in violation of the various orders of the Railway Board and have published on 01.01.2003. Hence, they have filed this OA under Section 19 of the A.T. Act seeking following reliefs:- (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case which led to issuance of the panel dated 01.01.2003 and after going through its propriety, legality and constitutional validity, be pleased to quash and set aside the panel dated 01.01.2003 issued under Order No.E/Legal/1025/4/27 Vol. IV issued by Respondent No. 2. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to direct the respondents to conduct a fresh selection to the post of Law Assistant. (e) Any other and further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit proper and necessary in the circumstances of the case.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant No. 1 is working ...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial