Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court August 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.
ishwarbhai H. Parmar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Aug-31-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ49CAT
1. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in ordering recovery from the salary of the applicant without issuing a formal order of punishment the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the quashing of the order.2. The case of the applicant, in brief, is that while he was working as Assistant Goods Clerk Maliya Miyana under the supervision of Station Superintendent, consignments were booked by R.Rs. 773778 to 773784 dated 4/5.12.1997 to Sodepur via. Bhopal, Naini, Mughal-Sarai. They were not dealt with by applicant and he acted under the instructions of Station Superintendent/Chief Goods Clerk. Error advices were received.The applicant was transferred as Goods Guard to Godhra on 10.11.1998.Chief Goods Supervisor, Maliya Miyana vide his letter dated 31.01.1999 informed the applicant that amounts shown in the error side have been taken into debit side and the applicant was advised to acknowledge the same. Sr. D.C.M., Vadodara, vide his letter dated 06.08.1999 has a...
M. Suresh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Aug-30-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ306CAT
1. Shri M. Suresh, Superintendent of Central Excise, in the present application seeks the following reliefs : "(a) Issue an order or direction to the respondents to re-review the proceedings of all the Departmental Promotion Committees conducted for the period from 1989 to 1995 by carrying forward the unfilled reserved vacancies and to give notional promotion to the applicant from the eligible date determined by the re-review DPC to be so conducted and grant the consequential benefits including fixing his inter se seniority; (b) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the ease, including the costs of this application." 2. In order to appreciate the controversy, the relevant facts as stated by the applicant are that: The applicant, belonging to ST community, joined Department of Central Excise and Customs as an Inspector on 15.1.1982. Despite the fact that in terms of policy of the Government of India, he was entitled to reservatio...
Punjab Civil Service (Executive Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Aug-26-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ256CAT
1. The most coveted and prestigious Indian Administrative Service (for short 'IAS'), one of the wings of the All India Services, is the creature of the All India Services Act, 1951. In exercise of the powers under Section 3(1) of the said Act, the Central Government has framed Indian Administrative Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (for short "Recruitment Rules"), which prescribe three distinct methods/sources for recruitment to IAS as laid down in Rule 4(i), namely: (b) By promotion of substantive member of State Civil Service (for short 'SCS (EB) Officers'); and (c) By selection, in special cases from amongst persons who held in a substantive capacity gazetted posts in connection with the affairs of a State and who are not members of a State Civil Service, (hereinafter referred to as "non-SCS Officer") Rule 8 deals with the recruitment by promotion or selection. Rule 8(1) provides for appointment to IAS on promotion of SCS (EB) Officers while Rule 8(2) provides for recruitment of an...
Ajeet Singh Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Aug-25-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ80CAT
1. By filing this O.A., the applicant has sought the following main reliefs: "8.1 to quash the adverse remarks for the appraised year 2001-2002 communicated by memo dated 18.12.2002. 8.2 to quash the memo dated 16.9.2003 rejecting the representation of the applicant. 8.3 to declare that the exercise of writing the adverse remarks and rejecting of representation is void illegal and arbitrary." 2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that he joined the State Police Service (for short 'SPS') as Deputy Superintendent of Police.\He was inducted into Indian Police Service (for short 'IPS') vide notification dated 15.2.2000, Before he was inducted into IPS-his seniority in the SPS was wrongly fixed. He filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of MP which stood transferred and registered as Transferred Application No. 1197/1988 on constitution of the M.P. Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur. The said T.A. 1197/1998 was allowed vide order dated 2.12.1997 with a d...
Mrs. Geeta Sabharwal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Aug-20-2004
Reported in: (2005)(2)SLJ269CAT
(i) that the seniority list dated 27th November, 2001 (Annexure A-19) be quashed and set aside; and (ii) direct the respondents to fix the seniority of the applicants from the date they were selected in accordance with the Rules and joined their duties; (iii) direct the respondents to promote the applicants in accordance with the Rules at least from the date when their juniors have been promoted if not earlier with consequential benefits including arrears of pay and also further promotion to the next higher post; (iv) and pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. On framing the Safdarjung Hospital Class III Recruitment Rules, 1973, recruitment to the posts of LDC required matriculation with experience in typewriting/By a memorandum dated 4.11.75 by the DoPT, which was followed by OM by Direct General Health Services, Government of India dated 17.12.76 recruitment to the posts of LDC and Stenographers in the subordin...
S.R. Gurudatta Vs. the Director (Admn.)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Aug-19-2004
Reported in: (2005)(1)SLJ367CAT
1. How to treat period of suspension, when the same was resorted on account of criminal offence being under investigation/inquiry and ending in acquittal, is the question posed for consideration in the present application.2. Few core facts which are not disputed are as follows : On registration of FIR for embezzlement of Government money under C.R. No.340/81 under Section 408 and 477-A of IPC, the applicant was placed under suspension with effect from 31st August, 1981 vide endorsement dated 16th October, 1981 on the ground that "criminal offence is under investigation/enquiry". The applicant was put to Trial in two identical cases being CC.Nos. 966/90 and 999/90. After criminal trial in the aforementioned CCs, vide two separate judgment dated 7th March, 2000 (Annexures-A4 & A7), the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mysore, acquitted him holding that: "On perusal of entire evidence on record reveals, none of the witnesses are in a position to speak fixing the responsi...
Prahalad Singh and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Aug-16-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ274CAT
1. Shri Prahalad Singh and Shri Hanuman Singh have filed their individual Original Application Nos. 150/03 and 151/03, respectively.Common question of law and facts are involved in both these applications and thus the same are being decided by this common order.2. The brief facts necessitating the filing of these original applications are that the applicants were employed on the post of Chowkidar and Painter (SK) respectively at Lalgarh Jattan. Both of them were convicted and sentenced for two years for offence under Sections 341, 323/34 and 325/34 (IPC). The incident arose out of quarrel of ladies of neighbours and had nothing to do with the official duties and discharging of public duties. The sentence imposed on the applicants by the Criminal Court has been suspended by the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur vide order dated 17.7.2002 in S.B. Criminal Revision No. 485/2002 at Annex. A/3. Despite the suspension of the sentence, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 22.7.2002...
Ajitkumar Das and Nathabhai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Aug-13-2004
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ322CAT
1. Being aggrieved by the order of the respondents dated 7.10.2002, cancelling the order dated 24.7.2000 containing approval of the Postmaster General for steping up of the pay of six officials, including both the applicants and directing the recovery of the excess amount paid by way of pay and allowances, the applicants have approached this Tribunal by moving this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Both the applicants were working as P. A. and according to them, their pay was fixed in the revised scale of pay at Rs. 4625 w.e.f. 1.1.96 as per the recommendation of the Vth Pay Commission. However, one another official Mr. B.J. Jani who was junior to both the applicants and whose pay was fixed at Rs. 4500 w.e.f. 1.1.96 on completion of 16 years of service was given benefit of TBOP w.e.f. 6.3.96 and his pay was fixed at Rs. 4750. The applicant and Ors. therefore, represented to the department about the pay anomaly and demanded stepping up of their pay at par...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›