Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court March 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.
T.P. JaIn Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Mar-31-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ91CAT
1. Aggrieved by the show cause notice dated 12.05.2003 issued by the respondents the applicant had preferred the present O.A. for quashing the said notice. When the charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules was issued thereafter the applicant has amended the O.A. and has sought for quashing of the same.2. The case of the applicant in brief is that after his promotion as Superintending Engineer on 7.04.1995 he was posted as Commander Works Engineer (SE) at CWE, Agra 02.09.95. The applicant had forwarded his comments dated 21.11.95 on a complaint addressed to MOS (Defence) and received from Chief Engineer, Lucknow indicating therein that GE Agra has issued tenders in a pool and ring tendering was in vogue. Pooling of tenders was resorted by GE Mathura also. Staff Court of enquiry was requested against GE Agra, CE Lucknow and GE Agra started acting against him because of this report. He was prematurely transferred to CE Eastern Command. Adverse remarks for 1995-1996 were communicated...
M.P. Administrative Service Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Mar-29-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ359CAT
1. Since the issue involved in both the O.As. is common and the facts and the grounds raised are identical, for the sake of convenience these O.As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. By filing the Original Application No. 284 of 2004 the applicants have sought the following main reliefs: 8.1.1. Respondent No. 1 may be directed to stop further intake of direct recruits into IAS Cadre of M.P. until their number is reduced to 206 which is the permissible upper limit. 8.1.2. As against the permissible limit of 90 fixed by Annexure A-1, only 81 Officers who have been appointed to IAS through the process of promotion/ selection are in position in the State of MP which is apparent from the list Annexure A-7 which has been prepared from the gradation list Annexure A-3. Therefore the respondents be directed to fill up the backlog of promotion quota expeditiously. 8.1.3. Respondents be directed to appropriately increase the promotion quota from 90 to 102 which is 33 1/3% so as to pro...
Sunil Jashanmal Golani Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Mar-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ170CAT
1. Aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2004 transferring him from Baroda Division to Bhavnagar Division and the rejection of his representation against the said transfer, the applicant has preferred the present O.A. He has sought for the quashing of both these transfer orders.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant was placed under suspension w.e.f. 18.8.2002 as a criminal case was under investigation and the applicant had been detained under custody for more than 48 hours. He was granted bail in the said criminal case vide order dated 09th September, 2002. The CBI had registered RC 27(A)/2002 and had submitted chargesheet in 2003. The applicant has been served with a major penalty chargesheet dated 03.2.2004 in respect of this very incident.The applicant has been charged with leaking of question paper of Probationary ASM examination to be conducted by RRB and having been caught while doing so in association with other persons. The said examination had to be cancelled. All t...
Hari Narayan Kirtaniya Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Mar-23-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ368CAT
1. How to treat the period in between the date of relieving till the date of joining on transfer, particularly when the concerned official did not discharge duties and functions of the post concerned and validity of such order is upheld by the Court, is the question posed in the present O.A.2. Admitted facts are that: The applicant belonging to SC category joined initially as LDC in the year 1957 and earned various promotions.He was promoted as Public Relations Officer on ad hoc basis on 18th July, 1994 and was transferred from Calcutta to Jaipur vide order dated 14.3.1985. Accordingly, he was relieved to join the said post as Jaipur on 15th March, 1985, but did not join. Ultimately, he reported for duty only on 7th August, 1989.3. Being aggrieved by the said transfer and release order, he submitted representation dated 16th March, 1985, which came to be rejected on 30th March, 1985. He was informed that failing to join Jaipur would invite disciplinary proceedings against him. The afo...
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha (Regd.) and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-18-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ118CAT
1. Canteen Mazdoor Sabha, represented through its President, and one more affected party have filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs: "A. Call for the records of the case and quash/set aside the order dated 13.12.2001 (Annexure-h) and Order dated 20.3.2003 passed by the respondent No. 2 with further declaration that the applicant continued to be employee of Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation till 3.5.1999 and their absorption in the National Airport Authority by impugned order dated 13.12.2001 by respondent No. 2 was illegal and hit by Section 23 of the Contract Act; B. Give further declaration that the persons mentioned in Para (ix) of the application have completed 10 years of service with the Director General, Civil Aviation, Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, New Delhi and are entitled to all other service/retiral benefits including pension; C. Give directions to the respondents to release arrears of benefit in view of the abovementio...
C.M. Medleri Vs. the Secretary, Govt. of India and
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Mar-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ99CAT
1. This O.A. is against the order of penalty of withholding of 3 increments of pay for a period of 3 years as confirmed in appeal.2. The facts of the case are as follows: The applicant was working as Superintendent of Central Excise in Tech. Section of Davangere Division during the period from 6/93 to 8/ 94. He was a supervisory officer of Sri N. Krishnamurthy, D.O.S. and dealing assistant Sri B.S. Venkatesh, LDC. During the said period Sri B.S. Venkatesh had kept 5111.C. papers relating to offence cases, adjudication and customs matters including three draft show cause notices pending unattended. The applicant being supervisory officer did not take any action for disposal of these pending cases nor did he review the work of his subordinates properly.On account of this, action in respect of the cases was rendered time barred resulting in loss of potential revenue to the department. The department taking the view that the applicant did not discharge his duties properly and did not take...
B. Chandrasekhar Rao and ors. Vs. the Principal Accountant General
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-04-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ83CAT
1. Since the issue involved and the relief claimed in all the applications are similar, they are taken up together and the following common order is passed.2. All the applicants worked in the respondents' organisation and retired on the last day of the month they attained the age of superannuation and their increment fell due on the first day of the succeeding month after their retirement. Applicants were granted pensionary benefits as per their entitlement but were denied the increment that fell due on the first day of the succeeding month after they retired and the enhanced D.A. as per their entitlement mainly on the ground that they were no more in service on the first day of the succeeding month after retirement. The applicants therefore has approached this Tribunal seeking extension of benefit of the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. 797/2002 dated 12.11.2002. In this context it requires mentioning that the question that arose for consideration in O.A. 797/2002 was whether the ap...
Mahadev Prasad Tyagi and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-01-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ339CAT
"(i) Grant Hospital Leave to Shri Munish Kumar Tyagi from 23.11.92 to 14.3.96; (ii) Release his settlement dues including Invalid Pension, DCRG, Provident Fund, Insurance Money etc., which became due on 14.3.1996, without making any cut; (iii) Grant family pension to the employee's 2 children from 12.9.2001 onwards; (iv) Register the name of Mayank Tyagi, the son of the dead employee who was 11 years old at the time of his father's death, for Compassionate appointment on his attaining majority. Since priority for such appointment is reported to be on the basis of the date of registration, the registration in this case should be from 20.11.98, the date the grand father as his guardian submitted the application (Annexure A - VIII); (v) For the unconscionable delay in making any payment at all to the employee who suffered serious head injury on duty and was hospitalised and was in coma till 12.9.2001 when he died, the respondents should be liable to grant interest at 12% compounded annua...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›