Skip to content

Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 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.

Jun 30 2005

B. Hampanna and ors. Vs. the Chief Personnel Officer,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Decided on: Jun-30-2005

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ248CAT

1. Since the question of law involved in these O.As. are common and based on same facts, the same are being disposed of by the present common order.2. We may note at the outset that O.A. Nos. 142, 143 and 144/2005 were filed by officials belonging to SC/ST communities, and others were preferred by general category candidates.3. Under the rules in vogue, the post of Assistant Divisional Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer (hereinafter referred as ADE/AEE) in the Railways is to be filled 70% by seniority-cum-fitness, while the rest 30%, based on Limited Departmental Competitive examination. In the present proceedings, we are concerned with 70% quota only. Southwestern Railway, Hubli, vide Notification dated 13.4.2000 proposed formation of a panel for promotion to the post of ADE/AEE against 70% quota for the assessment period 1.5.2004 to 30.6.2006. Number of vacancies notified were SC-5, ST-2 and unreserved-12. The Scheme of examination consist selection comprising a written examinati...


Jun 28 2005

Sultan Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided on: Jun-28-2005

Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ183CAT

2. In this O.A., a challenge has been made to an order passed by the respondents on 30.01.2004 terminating the services of the applicant under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as well as an order dated 19.6.2004 whereby representation preferred against the termination has been rejected.3. The brief factual matrix of the case shows that the applicant had applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police and filled up various forms i.e. Application Form on 12.4.2002, Attestation Form on 16.12.2002 and an undertaking on 18.01.2003 to the effect that he has neither been involved nor arrested/prosecuted/convicted nor dealt with under any law in force in any criminal case and no criminal case or Court proceeding is pending against him at present.4. The brief background, leading to filling up the forms, shows that though on a complaint by one Sh. Ashok Kumar an FIR No. 82/2001 was registered on 18.4.2001 against one Kappu and Malkhan. On a detailed investigation ...


Jun 24 2005

Azizullahkhan Vs. Member (P), Postal Services Board

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Decided on: Jun-24-2005

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ186CAT

1. The present O.A. is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 4.10.1996 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by six stages from Rs. 1330/- to Rs. 1150/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 975-1660 for a period of five years and the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments and the order dated 31.3.1997 reducing the penalty by two stages from Rs. 1330/- to Rs. 1270/- in the time scale of Rs. 975-1660 for a period of two years passed by Appellate Authority and the order dated 20.9.2001 reducing the penalty of withholding of next increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect by Re visional Authority.2. The applicant's case is that he was working as Postal Assistant in Sakkarsath Post Office, Amravati under the administrative control of respondent No. 3. In May 1991 Maheshwari Kanya Vidyalaya, Amravati handed over covers containing result of the students to the peon of the school to send the same by p...


Jun 08 2005

Syed SirajuddIn Vs. the Director, Prasara Bharathi

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

Decided on: Jun-08-2005

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ373CAT

1. The applicant challenges the order imposing penalty of compulsory retirement on him by the 1 st respondent/Director, Prasara Bharathi as confirmed by the 2nd respondent/Director General, Doordarshan in appeal.2. Facts of the case are as follows:- The applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk with effect from 22.5.1965 in the All India Radio and was promoted as Upper Division Clerk during 1984. He was transferred to Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Kendra'). Consequent on the enactment of Prasara Bharathi Act, he was treated as a person on deputation until he was finally absorbed as employee of Prasara Bharathi. The applicant was working in the legal cell of the Prasara Bharathi Broadcasting Corporation of India, Doordarshan Kendra until 1.9.1999. Again during the period of absence of the dealing assistant between 3.5.2000 and 12.5.2000, he was taking care of the legal matters. Writ Petition Nos. 2664/-53/1998 were filed by Casual Lighting Assistants ...


Jun 07 2005

Shivkumar B. Nair Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

Decided on: Jun-07-2005

Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ210CAT

1. Aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority imposing the penalty of dismissal from service and that of Appellate Authority in not deciding his appeal the applicant had preferred the present O.A. He had sought for the quashing of the charge sheet, the report of Enquiry Officer and the penalty imposed by ad hoc Disciplinary Authority. After the O.A. had been admitted the Appellate Authority also passed an order modifying the penalty to reduction to minimum of pay scale for three years with cumulative effect. The respondents also issued an officer office order reinstating him in service but imposing some further conditions. The O.A. was amended to challenge both these orders also.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant is a staff car driver with Debt Recovery Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 8.3.2002. Presiding Officer, DRT II Mumbai was appointed as the ad hoc Disciplinary Authority by Chairman DRAT acting for and on behalf o...


  • ‹ Prev
  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial