Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court January 2006 Judgments

Dilip Wagheshwari Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ43CAT

1. The applicant while working as a Programme Executive, Doordarashan Kendra, Ahmedabad, is served with the charge sheet on dated 28.8.2004.He has approached this Tribunal challenging the charge sheet and seeking the following relief: (A) Quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 28.8.2004 at Annexure-A hereto on the ground that the respondent No. 2 herein is not vested with any authority or power under any law to decide and initiate major penalty proceedings against the applicant herein. (B) Be further pleased to hold and declare that the decision of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein to initiate major penalty disciplinary proceedings against the applicant herein suffers from the vices of bias, prejudice, malice and inordinate and unexplained delay. (C) Hold, declare and direct that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances as narrated in the present O.A., the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, with the issuance of the impugned charge shee...

All India Station Masters' Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ102CAT

1. In all these Original Applications an order passed by the respondents on 23.07.2004 upholding the restructuring effected in group 'C cadre vide order dated 9.10.2003 in the category of Station Masters, Assistant Station Masters, Yard Masters and Traffix Inspectors for short SMs ASMs, YMs and TIs unifying into the cadre of SMs/ASMs, is impugned. As cause of action and relief sought are identical, in order to avoid multiplicity of decisions, these O.As. are being disposed of by this common order.2. In O.A. No. 2001/2004, All India Station Masters' Association, Delhi Division Branch along with others, have assailed merger of categories of SMs ASMs, YMs and TIs with a relief to quash Para 10.1 of the Notification dated 9.10.2003 and Board's letter dated 23.7.2004 or in the alternative to give effect to Para 10.5 dated 9.10.2003 from prospective date.3. Likewise in O.A. No. 2008/2004 filed by the All India Station Masters' Association along with one other, a challenge has been made to t...

Dr. Bhushan Lal Kaul Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ253CAT

1. The applicant an aspirant to the post of Deputy Director General (Pay scale, of Rs. 18,400-22,400) is aggrieved over his having been superseded in the selection held in December 2004. The ground for challenge inter-alia includes malafide alleged against respondent No.4. and hence the applicant has impleaded the said respondent No. 4 as well as respondent No. 5 who happens to be junior to the applicant in the feeder grade.2. Briefly stated, the applicant joined the post of Geologist Junior in the respondents organization in 1971 and by successive promotion, he come up the level of Director (Geologist) (Senior Grade), in the pay scale of Rs. 14300-18300 by order dated 21.8.2001. The next promotion in the ladder of promotion is Deputy Director General carrying the pay scale of Rs. 18400-22400. The D.P.C. met in December 2004 for considering eligible officers in the feeder cadre to the aforesaid post, one of whom was the applicant. However, apprehending that the applicant would be deni...

K. Ramachandran Pillai and ors. Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ1CAT

1. The applicants herein are Trained Graduate Teachers working under the first respondent, namely, the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. They were initially appointed during the year 1985/1986 in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1400-2600. In terms of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission they were granted replacement scale of Rs. 5500-9000 with effect from 1.1.96 and their pay was fixed at the stage of Rs. 6025 as on 1.1.96. On completion of 12 years service from the date of their initial appointment, they were granted the scale of Rs. 6500-10500. While so, the second respondent on its own issued the Annexure-Al order bearing No. F.3-Pay anomaly/2.1.2002/KVS(CHER) TGT dated 12.2.02 stepping up of the pay of 86 Teachers including the applicants at par with their junior, one Mrs. Abha Misra with effect from 1.1.96 in terms of proviso 6 of Rule 7 of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997.2. Later, the respondent No. 2, vide the impugned Annexure-A2 order dated 14.9.04 informed all th...

Tom Joseph Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ274CAT

1. The applicant has filed the present O.A. seeking allotment of quarter No. C.9 atDAD Residential Complex, Thevara, Perumanoor, Kochi in preference to the 6th respondent and to direct the second respondent to allot the said quarter to him.2. The facts of the case in brief are that the applicant is working as a Section Officer in the office of the 5th respondent, namely, the Assistant Accounts Officer, Defence Pension Disbursing Office, Perumanoor, Thevara, Kochi. He joined the present office on 12.4.04 on transfer from Bangalore. Immediately on joining he made an application for allotment of a Government accommodation and accordingly he was allotted Quarter No. Type III P.4.C Palluruthy, Kochi on 1.6.04.3. In matters of allotment of Defence Accounts Department (DAD) Pool Accommodation the applicant is governed by the Allotment of Government Residences (Defence Accounts Department Pool) Rules, 1986 and Rule 7(1) and Rule 13 thereof arc relevant in this case. Rule 7(1) provides as unde...

Shyoram Yadav Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ143CAT

1. By virtue of the present original application, appl icant, who is a Constable, has assailed an order passed by the respondents on re-consideration on 6.6.2005 declining him the offer of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector Executive in Delhi Police.2. Undisputed facts are that the applicant was enrolled as a Constable in Delhi Police on 15.3.1998. In the year 1994 he was falsely implicated, as alleged, in a criminal case pertaining to corruption charges vide FIR dated 13.7.1994. In Delhi Police, appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) is governed by Rule 7 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment), Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'Appointment Rules') where out of 50% of promotion quota, 10% of posts shall have to be filled through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination to be held by SSC from amongst the Constables, Head Constables, Assistant Sub-Inspectors with minimum five years of service. Applicant, on notification of the posts of Sub-Inspe...

Hc Shri Bhagwan Vs. Commissioner of Police, Jt.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. On a joint departmental proceedings and being aggrieved by a common penalty order dated 11.11.2003 imposing major penalty as well as a common appellate order dated 31.8.2004, these OAs are being disposed of by this common order.2. Applicant in A No. 2704, an Assistant Sub Inspector, and applicant in OA No. 2706/2004, a Constable, being proceeded against in a common proceedings on the allegations that while posted at Traffic Branch of Central District on 14.11.2002 in the wake of PRG Team conducting a vigilance check, illegal entry fee was recovered from Home Guard Constable who fled from the spot, by alleging that instead of restraining the subordinates from illegal activities applicants allegedly having been found actively involved in such illegal activities of collection of illegal entry money.3. In an enquiry held concluded the charge against the applicants on which a major penalty of forfeiture of five years approved service with cumulative effect was imposed and the same was u...

Subratra Rudra and 5 ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata

Reported in: (2006)3STR388

1. Shri Subrata Rudra and five others, all working in the various offices of the respondent organization, have filed this O.A.challenging the transfer order dated 22.6.2005 (Annexure-J). They have challenged the said impugned order of transfer on the ground that as per existing provisions of transfer in the respondent organization, transfer of all employees in Group 'C' is made only on promotion or on own volition or on mutual basis. But in the instant case, the respondents have violated the policy of the organization. They further alleged that the transfer order has been made by way of punishment and for setting up of a service union in the respondent organization by the applicants. Further that, the impugned order has been issued in utter violation of the recommendation made by the 5th CPC in paras 25.17 and 25.19 in respect of transfer of Group 'C' employee where it is clearly stated that any transfer from one station to another station should normally be resorted only to adjust su...

Balkrishna Gonduji Gawai Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ273CAT

1. The applicant has preferred this O.A. seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceedings instituted against him vide charge-sheet dated 1.7.1999, interdict, on the ground that same charges were subject matter of the criminal case in which the applicant has been acquitted.He has, thus, sought quashing of the charge-sheet dated 1.7.1999, the punishment order dated 18.1.2002, the appellate order dated 19.7.2002 and the revision order dated 10.2.2004. he has also prayed for setting aside the whole enquiry and the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the same are vitiated due to non-observance of the principles of natural justice.2. The facts in nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are that he entered the Postal Department as Postal Assistant on 22.2.1983. While working as Postal Assistant at Kranti Chowk Post Office, Aurangabad, the applicant was issued a major penalty charge-sheet dated 1.7.1999 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The applicant submitted his reply to the ...

Smt. Maya Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ396CAT

1. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that she has been subjected to transfer from KVS Allahabad to KVS Neemuch, invoking the provisions of Clause 18(b) of the guidelines for transfer.2. For the purposes of ready reference, the said provisions of Clause 18(b) together with Clauses 17(iv) and (b) referred to therein is reproduced below: 17(iv) In cases of fresh posting on direct recruitment, unless they complete a period of stay of three years and in case of female employees, one year of stay at the place of posting, their request for posting to choice place will not be considered". "17(v)In cases of promotion, unless he complete one year of stay at his place of posting, request for posting to his choice place will not be considered". "18(b)The Commissioner will be competent to make such departure from the guidelines, as he may consider necessary, with the prior approval of the Chairman, K.V.S. However, such departure will be considered only after the disposal of the cases ...