Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court September 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.
M.V. Krishnamurthy Vs. the Divisional Personnel Officer
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Sep-28-2005
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ208CAT
1. The above O.A, is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: Set aside the Annexure-A4, bearing No. G.50/P/UBL/2003/14dated 25th August, 2004 and issue further direction to the respondents revise and refix the applicant's pay on 1.07.1986 at Rs. 760, consequently issue further direction revise and refix the applicant's pay and issue revised pension in accordance with revised pay rules; and issue further direction to draw and pay all the consequential benefits flowing from thus orders with costs.2. Brief facts of the case are:- The applicant was promoted as Station Master in the scale of Rs. 700-900 from the scale of Rs. 550-750 with effect from 21.07.1985. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation, that is 58 years on 1.07.1986. While calculating pensionary benefits the increment which fell due on 1.07.1986 was not granted. Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal has taken the view that even though the employee retires on the la...
Pushpender and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-23-2005
Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ238CAT
1. As the facts are interwoven with identical question of law, for the sake of brevity and to avoid multiplicity, these O.As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. At the outset, after allowing all the M.As. for impleadment of parties likely to be affected by the outcome of the case and on their statement to forego their right to file reply, they have been accorded an opportunity to address us orally on facts and law.3. A common challenge has been made in these O.As. to the validity of Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Income Tax Officer Group 'B' Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, 2005 notified on 24.3.2005 deemed to have taken effect from 21.12.2004 on the ground of having caused prejudice and vested right of consideration for promotion of Inspectors to the posts of Income Tax Officers (ITO) without qualifying the departmental test has been denied.4. In O.A.-811/2005 applicant who was appointed as an Inspector on 27.12.1994 has become eligible for consideration under t...
R. Basu Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Sep-21-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ342CAT
1. The applicant, an IAS officer of 1964 batch assigned to Gujarat cadre, was serving as a Secretary to the Government of India, Deptt. of Electronics. He had opted for voluntary retirement under Rule 16(2) of the All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement) Rules, 1958 vide his notice dated 1.7.1996 and was permitted to retire voluntarily from the Indian Administrative Service w.e.f. 1.10.96 vide notification dated 30.9.1996. In view of news item appearing in Times of India dated 4.10.1996 to the effect that he had been appointed as a Chief Executive of Star T.V., the Government of India sought his explanation vide letter dated 9.10.96 pointing out that under Rule 26 of AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958 a pensioner cannot accept any commercial employment before expiry of two years from the date of retirement except with the previous sanction of the Central Government and that if the news item was correct, he had violated Rule 26 of the AIS (DCRB) Rules, 1958. The applicant replied to the communica...
D.C. Sagar, Ips Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
Decided on: Sep-16-2005
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ217CAT
1. As the issue involved in both the aforementioned Original Applications is common, and the facts involved and grounds raised are identical, for the sake of convenience both the Original Applications are being decided by this common order.2. M.A. No. 498//2005, filed by the applicants in O.A. 526/2005 to permit them to prefer joint O.A., is considered and allowed.3. By filing O.A. No. 525/05, the applicant has sought the following main reliefs: 8.2. to quash the order dated 30.05.2005 in the interest of justice, the de-novo exercise of drawing up list of 30 IPS officers for inter state transfer being beyond the mandate of M.P. Re-organization Act, 2000. 8.3 to hold that the calculation of 43 DRs vacancies done by the Committee (constituted vide order dated 5.12.2003) is violative to Regulations of 2000, and may further be pleased to quash the miscalculation of vacancies in the interest of justice. 8.4. to direct the respondents to prepare separate list for SC & ST category, in th...
N.L. Kushwaha Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
Decided on: Sep-15-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ81CAT
1. The question of law involved in this case is whether the transfer order issued to the applicant vide order dated 29.08.2005 (Annexure 1) suffers from any illegality warranting judicial inteference. The capsulated facts of the case precede consideration of the legal contentions put forward by either side from the succeeding paragraphs.2. The applicant, presently posted as the Superintendent of Post Office at Basti since mid April, 2005, after completion of this tenure at Bahraich who is due for superannuation in May, 2006, has, by virtue of order dated 29.08.2005 been transferred as "Officer on Special Duty" in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Gorakhpur and it is this order that has been challenged on the following grounds: 5 (a) Because the aforesaid impugned transfer order is totally arbitrary being in violation of the aforesaid Policy/Guidelines and as such the same is liable to be quashed. (b) Because from the aforesaid Policy/Guidelines, it would be evident that, as...
H.P. Nagaralkar Vs. the Secretary, Union of India
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Sep-14-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ350CAT
1. The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: (i) Set aside Annexure-A5 dated 27th September, 2004 bearing No. 8/3697 2003 Vig.III. (ii) Issue further direction to keep the departmental enquiry in abeyance till the disposal of the criminal case in the interest of justice and equity. (iii) Issue such other direction as deems fit in the circumstances of the case and also award cost of this application.2. The brief facts of the case are:- The applicant while working as Telecom District Engineer, Bidar during the period from April 1998 to May 2000 has carried out certain emergent departmental work in view of the urgency. The respondent filed a criminal case against the applicant at Bangalore vide case No. RC 18(A)/2001. Charge sheet has been filed against him and others under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, 471 read with 468 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corrupti...
R.S. Shinde Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Sep-13-2005
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ378CAT
1. Aggrieved by the action of respondents in not extending to him retirement benefits by treating him to have retired on 1.1.96 the applicant has preferred the present O .A. He has sought for a direction to the respondents that he should be extended the benefits as if he has retired on 1.1.96.2. The facts lie in a narrow compass. The applicant retired from service on 31.12.95. He had reportedly been agitating this grievance in different forum. It was finally rejected in pension adalat on 30.6.04. (i) The decision of Apex Court in S. Banerjee v. UOI. . (ii) The Full Bench decision in O.A. 459/97 and O.A. 460/97, V. Rajagopalan v. UOI. Annex.-A/11 is a decision of Banglore Bench in O.A. 694/03 which after taking note of stay granted by Mumbai High Court in writ petition filed against O.As. 469/97 and 460/97 has granted the consequential benefits as the same had not been reversed. (iii) The decision of Hyderabad Bench in O.A. 79/2000 which has followed the decision of Andra Pradesh High ...
Dhanjit Bayan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)(1)SLJ188CAT
1. Both these cases relate to grant of compassionate appointment to dependents of Postal Department employees who had died in harness under a scheme for compassionate appointment published by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (for short DOPT) O.M. No.14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 9.10.1998 and subsequent orders. Since both these applications relate to the compassionate appointment under the dying in harness scheme in the Postal Department and since the issues involved in both these cases are common these two cases are being disposed of by a common order.2. Heard Mr. B. Pathak, learned Counsel for the applicants and Mr. A.K.Chaudhuri and Ms. U. Das, learned Addl. C.G.S.C. for the respondents in O. A. Nos. 234/2004 and O. A. 85/ 2005 respectively.3. The applicant in O.A. No. 234 of 2004 is the son of late Upendra Nath Bayan who died while in service as a Group 'D' employee on 1.6.1999. The applicant, it is stated, had obtained a death certificate of his father o...
Prem Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-05-2005
Reported in: (2006)(91)SLJ282CAT
1. The question posed in the present O.A. is whether casual labourer is entitled to regularization merely on completion of 206/240 days, as the case may be, in two consecutive years, under DOP and TO. Ms. dated 26.10.1984 and 07.06.1988? 2. This is the second round of litigation. On an earlier occasion 4 applicants as in this O.A., instituted O.A. No. 860/2004 and prayed for regularization of their services in terms of DOP and TO.M. dated 26.10.1984 read with O.M. dated 7.6.1988 and also based on the decisions of this Tribunal in the matters of Partnanand v. UOI and Ors.(T.A. No. 4157 1986), Biswajyoti Ghosh and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. 1994 Vol. 1 ATI 488 and Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. (O.A. No.104/2002) wherein it had been held that casual labourers, who had rendered 206 days in two consecutive years, were entitled for regularization. After considering the various contentions raised by the parties, the said O.A. was disposed of vide order at 27.05.2004, with the following obse...
Vinay Mohan Lal Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Sep-02-2005
Reported in: (2006)(2)SLJ235CAT
1. This OA has been filed by the applicant for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 24.5.2005 moving the applicant from the post of Chairman, Third Maharastra Finance Commission (in short 'TMFC') and posting him as Managing Director, MAFCO. After hearing the Counsel for applicant on 1.6.2005, ad-interim relief was granted restraining the respondents to operate the impugned order and the case was listed for 15.6.2005 i.e. after a period of 14 days. In the meantime the applicant moved Misc. Petition No. 338/05 on 14.6.2005 for adding the name of Dr.D.K. Sankaran in the array of respondents and also to make certain amendments in the OA.2. On 15.6.2005 arguments were heard of the Counsel from both sides on the point of vacation or continuation of ad-interim relief granted on 1.6.2005 and the stay on the operation of the impugned order dated 24.5.2005 was continued vide order dated 17.6.2005.3. The respondents filed a Writ Petition No. 1636 of 2005 before the Hon'ble High Court ...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »