Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court November 2005 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.
K.i. Chinnamma Vs. the Commissioner, K
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Nov-30-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ262CAT
1. The applicant retired on 31.07.1996 as Work Experience Teacher. She is a resident of Cochin and there is no Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) available at Cochin. Since no facility is available at Cochin she did not get registered under CGHS. She is in receipt of medical allowance of Rs. 100 granted to Central Government pensioners.It was averred in the O.A. that the applicant's daughter was admitted to V.G. Saraf Memorial Hospital Private Limited. On 14.05.2003, while the applicant was on her way to hospital to see her daughter, she got severe pain and swelling in her right arm. She was rushed to casualty immediately and X-ray was taken, which gave an indication that she had a fracture of right humerus. The applicant's case was referred to Amla Cancer Hospital for having bone scan and accordingly, she was admitted there. She underwent a surgery. Besides five radiation, one bone strengthening injection and one chemotherapy dose were administered.She was discharged on 06.06.20...
Shaji Zacharia and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Nov-21-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ179CAT
1. In all these Original Applications, the applicants have challenged Clause 14 of the Annexure-A1 order of the Railway Board No. PC.III/ 2003-CRC/6 dated 9.10.03 by which instructions have been issued to the General Managers of All Indian Railways and Production Units regarding restructuring of certain Group C and D cadres for strengthening and rationalizing the staff pattern of the Railways. As a result of the restructuring, the existing percentage of different grades in certain categories of Group C and D staff have been changed which resulted in the upward revision of the percentage in higher grades and downward revision in the lower grades in each of such categories of staff.However, the total number of staff strength in each category remained the same. The applicants are aggrieved only by the instruction No. 14 regarding reservation of posts to the SC/ST categories of staff in the additional higher grade posts occurred as a result of the restructuring. The said instruction No. 1...
Dr. Anil Kumar Mukhi Vs. the Chief Soil Survey Officer and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Nov-18-2005
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ105CAT
1. The above applicant is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: The applicant thus has been penalized illegally and which has a devastating effect not only in his career but also in the matter of sanction of retiral benefits. Having been aggrieved by the irredeemable damages, the applicant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to: (ii) set aside the Charge Sheet No. 13011/39/92-AVU dated 28.08.1995 at Annexure-12 passed by the 3rd respondent in toto; (iii) set aside the penalty order 1301 1/39/92-AVUdated9.01.2004at Annexure-A33, passed by the 3rd respondent in toto; (iv) set aside the order No. 13011/39/92-AVU dated 4.10.2004 at Annexure-A38 passed by 3rd respondent in toto; (v) set aside order No. E-12-1/G(A)/45 dated 26.02.2004 at Annexure-A40 passed by 1st respondent. (vi) direct the respondents to promote the applicant earlier to the date of promotion (July - August 1998 (Sic 2000) of Shri C.P. Singh, as Senio...
B.L. Verma Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
Decided on: Nov-16-2005
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ203CAT
1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting aside an order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 27.9.2002 removing the applicant from service and order dated 4.3.2003 of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal. The applicant has also impugned the order of the Revisional Authority rejecting the revision petition.2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows. The applicant was appointed as Postal Assistant on 27.7.1981 against a vacancy reserved for Scheduled Caste (SC) on the basis of a caste certificate issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Navalgarh. The applicant was served a charge sheet dated 18.10.1996 alleging that the applicant belongs to "Kumhar" caste, but presented himself as a member of SC for getting appointment. A punishment of removal was imposed on the applicant vide order dated 29.9.1997, The applicant appalled against that order and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 15.1.1998 modified the punishment from "removal from...
Pushpa Sinha and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Decided on: Nov-14-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ203CAT
1. O.A. 562 of 1998 was originally filed by Late Shri Niranjan Prasad Sinha S/o Late Shri Kapildeo Narayan Sinha under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. Shri Sinha, however, died on 21.8.2004 and hence his legal heirs namely Smt. Pushpa Sinha, Wife, Shri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, Son and Shri Subodh Kumar Sinha, another son of Late Shri Niranjan Prasad Sinha filed a M.A. No. 157 of 2005 on 2.12.2004 for substitution of the names of heirs in place of Shri Sinha in O.A. No. 562 of 1998. The request was allowed. There was, however, a delay of fifteen days in filing the impugned M.A. which too was condoned by the Tribunal vide, order dated 30th May, 2005 on sufficient grounds advanced by the successor applicants. These applicants are represented by their Counsel Mr. S.N.Shukla.3. The case was originally fixed for hearing on 31.8.2005. Due to non-appearance of the learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. S.N.Shukla, the O.A. in question was dismissed for default. Subsequently,...
Central Secretariat Service and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-11-2005
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ235CAT
1. Validity of Regulation 4 of the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers' Grade/Stenographers Grade 'B' (Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations) Regulations, 1964 is questioned in the present O.A., besides seeking a declaration that Grade 'C Stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers' Service (hereinafter referred as CSSS) are not eligible for appearing in the Central Secretariat Service Section Officers Grade (Limited Departmental Competitive Examination) with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant No. 1 is an Association of directly recruited Assistant in the Central Secretariat Service, while applicant Nos. 2 to 5, members of Applicant No. 1 Association, were recruited as Assistants during the years 1990-1994. The basic grievance is that the Regulation 4 of 1964 Regulations travels beyond the 1962 Rules and the said regulation being a subordinate Regulation under the 1962 Rules, could not travel beyond the parent Rules of 1962. The Central Secretariat Service...
Dr. K.P. Rawerkar Vs. Director General of Indian
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Nov-10-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ286CAT
1. The applicant has preferred this Original Application (OA) for setting aside ex pa rte order dated 21.3.2001 (A/2) passed in O.A. No.28/HP/2000 while proceeding ex pane against the applicant who was Respondent No. 4 in that O.A., with further prayer to give him due opportunity to contest his case.2. The applicant has further challenged impugned order dated 31.5.02/21.6.02 (A/1) whereby his appointment to the post of Sr.Scientist (Soil Microbiology) was cancelled and he was placed at the disposed of Dr. Y.S. Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Solan (HP) as Assistant Scientist with further prayer for direction to respondents to treat him in service as Sr. Scientist with all consequential benefits.3. Briefly, the facts of the case as submitted in the O.A. are that the applicant was Respondent No. 4 in above referred O.A. 28/HP/2000 filed by one Dr. Y.P. Dube, who is now Respondent No. 4 in the present O.A.Dr. Y.P. Dube had challenged the selection of present applicant to ...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›