Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court April 2005 Judgments

Bishwanath Paul Vs. the Vice Chairman, Kendriya

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Cuttack

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ191CAT

1. Shri B.B. Paul, formerly PGT (Mathematics) of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Dhanbad, has filed this original application being aggrieved by the order of termination of service passed by respondent No. 2 under the provisions of Article 81(b) of the Education Code for Kendriya Vidyalayas (hereinafter called Code for 'K.V.') which was communicated to him by order dated 2/3.5.2002 (Annexure 4). He has approached this Tribunal praying for quashing the said impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority ('D.A.' for short) and also the appellate order dated 15.1.2003 (Annexure 6). He has also prayed for issue of a direction for his reinstatement of the applicant in service with all consequential service benefits.2. The applicant has assailed the order of termination under Article 81(b) of the Code for K.V being shockingly disproportionate to the alleged offence and also on the ground that the order was a perverse one being based on no evidence and also on the ground that he was denied the benefit of ...

Mukhtar Ahmad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ24CAT

1. The perpetual dispute of seniority between promotee and direct recruit has again found its echo in this litigation. The applicant is a promotee while respondent No. 7 is a direct recruit. The brief facts leading to this O.A. can be narrated as under: 2. The applicant was appointed as an Investigator in Doordarshan Srinagar on 19.11.77. He was promoted as Research Assistant on 31.12.1983 on ad hoc basis. It appears that he was reverted back to the post of Investigator on 19.3.1986 and thereafter again regularly promoted on 14.8.88 on the recommendation of the DPC and joined the post on 16.2.1989. The relevant recruitment rules known as All India Radio (Group B Post) Recruitment Rules, 1962 and amended vide notification dated 28.6.1985 prescribes the recruitment to the post of Research Assistant (now re-designated as Assistant Research Officer Grade-I) in the following manner: (2) 25% by transfer on deputation/transfer, failing which by direct recruitment, and 3. It appears that in t...

T.N. Shivakumar Vs. Regional Provident Fund

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ108CAT

1. As an earlier order dated 27.1.2005, disposing of the present OA has been recalled earlier by us today, we heard this OA afresh and proceeded to decide on merits.2. The question posed in the present OA is whether the applicant is entitled to regularization of the period of suspension and dismissal as well as full pay and allowances with other consequential benefits? 3. The admitted facts are that the applicant, while working as Section Supervisor, was placed under suspension vide order dated 18.12.1993 pending investigation into the "criminal offence". The incident in question for which he was placed under suspension, resulted in criminal proceedings vide Special CC No. 53/1994 filed before the learned Court of XXI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, and learned Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, convicted him for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide judgment dated 22.2.1999. Criminal Appeal No. 286/1999 preferred...

D.J. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ77CAT

1. By filing this original application, the applicant has claimed the following main relief: (a) direct the respondent that the entire period of suspension from 4.10.88 to 9.2.90 be treated as duty for all purposes and consequent to above, to pay arrears of pay and allowances as admissible within a period of three months.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Progressman Grade-I in the Telecom Factory, Jabalpur. He was placed under suspension with effect from 3.10.1988 on the ground of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently a memo of charge sheet dated 8.11.1988 was issued to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, There was a delay on the part of respondent No. 2 in completing the disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, the applicant requested for increase in subsistence allowance and revocation of suspension. The applicant did not get any reply fr...

B.N. Nadhamuni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ295CAT

(a) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call for the records of the case and after going through the same, be pleased to declare that the applicant is entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. On the Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 2,58,359 from 1.6.1993 to August 2003. and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to forthwith pay the same to applicant. (b) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to declare that the applicant is also entitled to interest @ 12% p.a. on the commuted value of pension, amounting to Rs. 67,907 from 1.6.1993 till its actual date of payment in August 2003, and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to forthwith pay the same to the applicant. (c) The Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to declare that the applicant is also entitled to interest @ 12% p.a, on the arrears of regular pension due to the applicant from June 1993 to August 2003 and be pleased to order and direct the respondents to calculate and forthwith pay the same to the applicant...

Dr. Amita Chandra and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ157CAT

1. Dr. Amita Chandra and five others have filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein they have prayed for the following reliefs: "(i) This original application may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 20.1.2003 may kindly be declared to be illegal and the same may be quashed and set aside. (ii) By further appropriate order or direction the action of the respondents making out discrimination between the similarly selected candidates be held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, on this ground also the impugned order be quashed and set aside. (iii) 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 also kindly be issued in favour of the applicant." 2. The abridged material facts, considered necessary for resolving the controversy involved in the instant case, are that...

Shri R.C. Bakshi S/O Shri S.L. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who retired on superannuation as Income Tax Officer on 30.11.2005, seeks the following reliefs: (i) To direct the Respondents to revoke the suspension of the applicant w.e.f. 26.06.1997. (ii) To direct the Respondents to reinstate the applicant in service w.e.f. 26.06.97 treating him on duty till date. (iii) Pay all consequential benefits including pay and allowances as difference excluding the subsistence allowance already paid to him. (iv) Grant all increments of pay and fixation of pay to which the applicant was entitled but for the suspension. (v) To pass any order or directions, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet ends of justice.2. Applicant is aggrieved by an order dated 9.9.2005 whereby, despite his acquittal in a criminal case of corruption, on which he had been placed under suspension, he had been continued to be under suspension on account of the pending criminal trial for an offence o...

Y.R. Patil, Ips Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ154CAT

1. The case was listed today for hearing and Mr. M. Nagarajan, learned Counsel for respondents 2 - 4 produced a communication dated 2nd April, 2005 from the office of Chief Secretary, Govt. of Karnataka, addressed to him stating that since the applicant had completed 30 years of qualifying service and attained the age of 50 years, he can apply for voluntary retirement by giving three months' notice to the Government.The said communication also stated that as far as the regularization of period from 21.9.2004 is concerned, upto 30.10.2004 it could be considered on production of medical certificates and rest of the period will be regularised under the relevant rules depending on the application for extension of leave to be submitted by the concerned officer.2. Mr. Subramanya Jois, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant, on instructions, stated that he is not willing to seek voluntary retirement, as suggested, and therefore he proceeded with the matter on merits.3. I may note...