Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court October 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.
Employees' Provident Fund Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Oct-29-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ189CAT
1. There are two applicants in this O.A. The first applicant is the Employes' Provident Fund Pensioners' Association, Kerala, and the second applicant is a retired officer of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. The main grievance of the applicants is as follows: "(i) To declare that the applicants are entitled to CGHS benefits as they are on par with Central Government Pensioners; (ii) In the alternative, direct the respondents to frame a scheme on par with CGHS or on the basis of Annexure A8 within stipulated period in consultation with the EPF Pensioners Association; and (iii) To declare that the category-wise ceiling limits imposed in Annexure-A6 is illegal and discriminatory and direct the respondents to grant the benefits under Annexure-A6 to all the pensioners equally till a new scheme is introduced." 2. The claim of the applicants is that the Central Board of Trustees, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO, for short), is a Body Corporate under Section 5C of Empl...
Smt. Raminder Duggal Vs. Kendriya Vidayalya Sangathan and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Oct-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ357CAT
1. Since issues raised in these cases are interlinked and have common facts, they are being taken up by the present common order.2. In O.A. No. 781/2003, validity of Memorandum of Charge dated 14.10.2003 has been questioned, while in O.A. No. 1063/2003, the Office Memorandum dated 7.11.2003 has been impugned.3. Core admitted facts are that: the applicant, who holds Bachelor Degree in Science from Delhi University and did Shiksha Bharati (equivalent to B.Ed.) from Mahila Gram Vidyapitha Prayag - Allahabad, in the year 1989, was appointed as Primary School Teacher, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and joined the said post with effect from 4.10.1993. Prior to said date, she also worked as Assistant Teacher as well as part-time Teacher in certain Private School/Kendriya Vidyalaya.All of a sudden, Memorandum dated 4th March, 2003 was issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, alleging, that she "has produced a Certificate of Shiksha Bharati (Bachelor of Education) of Mahila Gram Vidyapitha...
Ravinder Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ134CAT
1. Through this O. A. the applicant assails respondents' order dated 19.1.2004 imposing upon him a penalty of dismissal from service as well as appellate order dated 20.4.2004 upholding the punishment.2. In order to better understand, the brief factual matrix is relevant.Applicant, working as a Constable in Delhi Police, has earlier been dismissed resorting to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.The order was challenged in O.A. No. 157/2002 inter alia holding that Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules') should have been complied with.The dismissal order was set aside, with liberty to the respondents to hold the departmental proceedings against the applicant and reinstatement was ordered with all consequential benefits. Applicant was reinstated on 27.5.2002, subject to pending CWP before the High Court of Delhi, and was proceeded against for a major penalty under Rule 16 of the Rules ibid.3. Before the applicant...
R.G. Galia Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Oct-15-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ330CAT
1. Aggrieved by the action of respondents in ignoring the higher percentage mark of the applicant with malafide intention and favouring of respondent No. 3 the applicant has preferred to present O. A. He has sought for the following relief: "(A) The Hon. Tribunal be pleased to declare the impugned decision on the part of respondent No. 2 to appoint respondent No. 3 as EDBPM, ignoring the merits of the applicant, as illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and be pleased to quash and set aside the same and direct the respondent No. 2 to appoint applicant as EDBPM at village Tikar. (B) Be pleased to declare that there is no justification available to respondent No. 2 to appoint unqualified person with less percentage of marks as EDBPM and declare that the respondent No. 2 has acted malafide and direct him to give regular appointment to the applicant as EDBPM. (C) Any other relief to which the Hon. Tribunal deems fit and proper in inte...
Dr. P.V. Surya Rao Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ95CAT
1. The applicant filed the present O.A. with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.8.2003 of dismissal from service of the applicant issued by the respondents, declaring the same as arbitrary, excessive, illegal, improper, unjust and unfair, unconstitutional and perverse and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and Railway Service Rules and consequently to direct the respondents to restore the applicant into Railway Service as if the impugned order is non-est and unenforceable with all consequential monetary and service benefits appertaining thereto and to pass such other order or further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case. The applicant is an Anaesthetist Doctor in the South Central Railway service, being a Gold Medalist in his final MBBS and having put in 16 years of service in the South Central Railways Hospitals, including Head Quarters Railway Hospital, Secunderabad with good commendation certific...
Abdul Razack Vs. the President of Income Tax and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Oct-12-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ281CAT
1. The applicant has filed this O.A. with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.7.2003 passed by the 1st respondent namely, The President of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and directing him to obey, comply and carry out the directions given by this Tribunal in its common orders dated 1.3.2001 passed in O.A. No. 1774/1999 and in O.A. No. 93/2001 and regularise the service period of 357 days of the applicant as qualifying service for payment of pension and gratuity as per Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and to pass such other and further orders as may be considered necessary to render full and complete justice to the applicant. The applicant retired from service as Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur on superannuation on 14.2.2003. While in service the applicant was transferred from Chennai Bench to Guwahati Bench and the same was subsequently modified to Cuttack by order dated 19.7.1999. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed ...
L.V. Garchar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Oct-11-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ154CAT
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.3.2004 terminating his service under Rule 8 of CDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the quashing of the order together with all consequential benefits.2. The case of the applicant in brief is that he was provisionally appointed on 16.5.2001 pending per appointment facilities. His services were satisfactory. The existing instructions provide that power under this section can be invoked only for unsatisfactory service and not for specific misconduct. In the latter case regular departmental proceedings have to be taken up. No such notice was given. There are a number of decisions of Tribunal including the Full Bench decision in the case of Tilakdhari Yadav v. Union of India, 1997 ATC (36) 539.3. The case of the respondents in brief is that two applications were received from employment exchange Probander in response to requisition sent by them for filling up the vacant post. The applican...
Bhoop Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Oct-08-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ351CAT
1. Applicant assails a major penalty of forfeiture of one year's permanent service entailing reduction in pay inflicted vide order dated 30.8.2003 as well as appellate order dated 16.1.2004, upholding the punishment.2. Applicant while working as Head Constable Driver and attached on a duty in PCR Van on 6.9.2002 while it was drizzling due to sudden flash of on coming vehicle, PCR Van collided with the road divider, resulting in damage to the vehicle and injuries to the staff.3. An inspection was carried out by the ACP (Motor Transport Section), where a report was submitted on 11.9.2002 observing that the damage caused to the vehicle is due to rash and negligent driving of applicant.4. The Disciplinary Authority (DA) having jurisdiction issued a show cause notice to applicant on 11.9.2002 proposing a minor penalty of censure. This has been represented to by applicant.5. Videan order dated 26.12.2002 the Deputy Commissioner of Police ordered a regular disciplinary enquiry (DE) against a...
M.V. Thimmaiah Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Oct-04-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ113CAT
All these applicants belong to Group-A. Officers of the State of Karnataka. They assail the selection of candidates recommended for inclusion in the IAS cadre under the non-State Civil Service quota earmarked for the officers of the State of Karnataka.1. Proceedings were initiated with a communication from the Deputy Secretary to Government, DPAR (Services) Karnataka Government Secretariat dated 30th March, 2002 for considering the eligibility of candidates for selection to the 8 vacancies in the Indian Administrative Service from the non-State Civil Services quota earmarked for the State of Karnataka. 40+1 candidates were short listed in the order of merit from among the 79 candidates by the State Government. The Committee for selection constituted for that purpose thereafter held the interviews between 24-11-2003 and 28-11-2003 and prepared a select list of 8 candidates. They were sent through the' Government of Karnataka to the Union Public Service Commission for approval and for i...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›