Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court July 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.
Usha Kapoor Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ278CAT
1. Smt. Usha Kapoor has invoked the jurisdiction of this Bench of the Tribunal and filed this Original Application for questioning the validity of order dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure-A/2) whereby her claim for family pension and pensionary benefits has been turned down. She has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the same in addition to claiming the release of pension, gratuity and other admissible dues of late Shri Tilak Raj Kapoor in favour of the applicant in accordance to the terms of agreement duly executed on affidavit on 18.09.2003 between the applicant and respondent No. 5, so as to meet the dire need of source of livelihood to the bereaved family, amongst other reliefs.2. The case was listed for admission and with the consent of all the learned Counsel for contesting parties it was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. I have, accordingly, heard the elaborate arguments advanced on behalf of all the contesting parties and also perused the pleadings and records of...
Vijayshanker Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Jul-29-2005
Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ321CAT
1. The applicant is serving as a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and he is aggrieved by his non-promotion to the post of joint Commissioner of Income Tax. The DPC constituted for promotion to the said post in September 2003 did not include his name in the select list of the promotees and hence, he had represented his case vide his representation dated 30.10.2003 pointing out that his performance all through out had been 'very good' and, he had never been communicated any adverse remarks in his ACRs and he was never informed that his performance was below the bench mark of 'very good'. Since he had not been communicated any remarks regarding his performance, he had been under the impression that his performance was quite satisfactory and upto expected levels. His representation however, has not yielded any result and therefore, he has approached this Tribunal seeking direction against the respondents to grant him promotion to the post in question with all consequential benefits from ...
Dhala Ram Choudhary Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Decided on: Jul-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ281CAT
1. Shri Dhala Ram Choudhary has, inter alia, assailed the validity of order dated 06.10.2004, (Annexure.A/1) and also has prayed for declaring the same as void and non est, in addition to restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in furtherance thereto, amongst other reliefs.2. The case was listed for admission. The learned Counsel for both the parties prayed for final disposal of the case at the stage of admission since a very short controversy was involved in the matter. We have, accordingly, heard the arguments advanced at the bar by both the learned Counsel for the parties and have also given our anxious thought and consideration to the pleadings and records of this case.3. The factual matrix of the case falls within a very narrow compass.The relevant and admitted material facts of this case are that the applicant was imposed with a penalty of reduction by two stages in the same time scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 from Rs. 7250 to 6950 with cumulative effect vide pe...
V. Thangammal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jul-15-2005
Reported in: (2005)(3)SLJ164CAT
1. The applicant who is a Part time Contingent Gardener/Water Carrier in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchirapalli Division, has challenged her order of termination dated 16.6.2005.2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: According to the applicant she belongs to very poor family. She was appointed as Gardener-cum-Water Carrier-cum-Outdoor Sweeper with effect from 6.3.1997 in a regular vacancy in the place of then incumbent one Shri V. Muniyandi, who was appointed as EDDA/MC by the second respondent.She had completed 240 days as a Part time Casual Labourer and she was hoping to get Temporary status. While so, she was surprised to receive a show cause notice dated 6.1.2005 calling upon her to make representation on the proposal to terminate her on the ground that her appointment was made in contravention of Director General's instructions. It was stated that as per DG's letter dated 11.5.1989, no new Casual Labourers are to be engaged after 10.9.1993...
K.P. Kannan and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ29CAT
1. The common question of law involved in these O.As. (773 & 774/2004) and 107/2005) is whether the respondents 1 and 2 action in overruling the decision of a Committee of relevant experts regarding supply of life savings drug of a particular brand is justified or not.2. The issue raised on the face of it may not appear to be a matter which calls for adjudication by this Tribunal but in the context and the background in which this issue has been raised has necessitated adjudication by this Forum as it has direct bearing upon good medical care to the Government employees needing super speciality treatment.Further issue that call for urgent consideration by this Tribunal was the binding effect of Committee of super specialists constituted pursuant to the order of this Tribunal, on the respondents and whether a High Court Powered Committee constituted later by the respondents could over rule the recommendations and decision of a super specialists committee referred to above, more so ...
Jibanendu Saha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ47CAT
1. The applicant was originally appointed as an Assistant Station Master on 7.9.1962. Later he was promoted as Station Superintendent in the scale of pay of Rs. 7450-11,500 in the year 1993. The applicant was medically decategorised on 4.8.1998 and was declared fit for appointment to C/one and C/two medical categories. The applicant was directed to appear for a suitability test for medically decategorised staff on 12.8.1998. Accordingly the applicant appeared before the authority and on finding him suitable, he was absorbed as Chief Controller (Control) in the scale of pay of Rs. 7450-11500 against the existing vacancy on 6.10.1998 (Annexure-I). The applicant joined the said post on 8.10.1998, but from 10.10.1998 he was not allowed to work and his name was struck off from the attendance register. The applicant then submitted a representation dated 30.10.1998 for allowing him to perform his duties followed by a reminder request dated 20.11.1998 (Annexures-II and III series). The applic...
Sri Lienkhawthang Varte Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Jul-08-2005
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ126CAT
1. The applicant belongs to S.T. community. He was initially appointed as U.D. Clerk in the Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, NER, Shillong in the year 1984. While so, he applied for the post of Rehabilitation Officer pursuant to a Notification dated 25.03.1986 issued by the Union Public Service Commission (U.P.S.C, in short). He was selected and appointed as Rehabilitation Officer in the Office of the Directorate General of Employment and Training under the Ministry of Labour, Government of India. Accordingly, he joined as Rehabilitation Officer on 25.03.1986. A gradation list (Annexure-II) was published on 01.01.1989 in which the applicant was placed at SI.No. 8 as a S.T. candidate. On 27.11.1996, the applicant submitted a representation to the 3rd respondent for consideration of his promotion to the post of Superintendent against the reserved post of S.T.. Three (3) posts of Superintendents which fell vacant in the year 1997 were filled up on ad hoc basis as per order dated...
Bir Singh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ118CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 24.03.2005 and seeks reinstatement with all consequential benefits. Applicant, who was enrolled as a Constable in Delhi Police on 28.12.1978 was raised to the rank of Head Constable. While posted at Police Station, Maya Puri on 01.01.2003, applicant on account of some difficulty in performance of his beat duties, requested Inspector Rajinder Singh Dahiya (Respondent No. 4), who was functioning as Station House Officer at the relevant point of time, to change his duty in view of his age, which was not acceded to. When request for general duty was not accepted to and when the applicant was shifted to another beat duty, representations were made by the applicant to the higher officers.2. On 15.4.2003, an explanation was sought from the applicant by the S.H.O. as to his failure to arrest an accused in FIR No. 93/2003 and he was further directed to check the buses from 5.00 p.m. to 11.00 p.m. On completion of such duty, when such a misbehaviour...
Dr. Mukesh Kalra Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-06-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ46CAT
1. By virtue of the present original application a challenge has been made to an order passed by respondents on 15.2.2005 whereby the Applicant has been transferred to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (for short GTB) from Maulana Azad Medical College (for short, MAMC) in the capacity of Professor (Orthopaedics).2. By an order dated 21.2.2005, operation of the aforesaid order had been stayed.3. Briefly stated applicant, who was earlier on deputation to Bahrain, belongs to the cadre of Central Health Services of the Government of India. At Bahrain, it was detected that the applicant was suffering from skin cancer and due to non-availability of facilities for proper treatment, he was repatriated back to India in his parent cadre and was posted at Jipmer, Pondicherry. As the treatment for the ailment of the applicant was only available at AIIMS, he was, therefore, transferred from Pondicherry to MAMC on 19.12.2004.4. By an order dated 27.1.2005 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›