Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court October 2006 Judgments

Baleshwar S/O Late Shri Phool Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged the order dated 26.8.2005 (page 10). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to restore him to the original position with consequential benefits in accordance with the order of Tribunal in OA 736/2004.2. It is submitted by the applicant that when he had initially approached this Tribunal in OA 736/2004, specific direction was given to the respondents that if a vacancy was available to promote Shri Satish Kumar without reversion of the applicant, then applicant will be brought back to his original position with consequential benefits. It is stated by the applicant that the vacancy is very much there, which is evident from the respondents own order dated 26.8.2005 yet applicant has not been promoted as UDC, which is contrary to the judgment given in aforesaid O.A. Therefore, the order dated 26.8.2005 is liable to be quashed because respondents cannot sit in appeal over the directions given by this Tribunal. He also submitted that al...

R.K. Meena, Dy. Director (T), Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting of the order of the respondents dated 17.03.2006 wherein his request for grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 to the post of Deputy Director was rejected. He has accordingly sought a direction from this Tribunal to the respondents to grant the higher pay scale of Rs. 12000-16500 to the post of Deputy Director in his organization, as has been provided to Deputy Directors in other Departments, w.e.f. 01.01.1996, with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Senior Superintendent in the year 1978 in the Department of Social Welfare, Government of NCT of Delhi, in the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1600, which was revised to Rs. 3000-4500 as a result of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. In the year 1992, the applicant was promoted, on ad hoc basis, to the post of Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000, which was revised to Rs. 10000-15200 o...

Gurmeet Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ288CAT

1. These are a bunch of matters, applicants of which were before this Court earlier also, except the applicants in the case of Gurmeet Singh and Ors. in O.A. 352/CH of 2005. All are persons whose services have been terminated by the respondents on account of obtaining employment on various posts as LDCs/UDCs/ Stenographers/Tax Assistants/Sr. Tax Assistants etc. Some of them have meanwhile got promotions from their post even upto the rank of Income Tax Officer, details of which have been given by the applicants in each case. We need not reproduce all the details as the facts and the questions of law which are common are that their services were terminated on the ground that either they had never appeared in the examination held by Staff Selection Commission or if some of them had appeared, none of these applicants had ever qualified the said examination to make them eligible for getting appointment in the Income Tax Department. However, all are said to have produced nomination letters ...

Sube Ram (D-1/525) S/O Shri Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this O.A. an Inspector in Delhi Police has assailed an order passed by respondents on 21.6.2004 in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal dated 25.3.2004, imposing upon applicant a major punishment of forfeiture of two years approved service permanently for a period of one year. The punishment had taken effect from 10.9.1999. Also assailed is an order passed in appeal on 31.8.2005, affirming the punishment.2. The facts are not disputed. On the allegations that applicant while posted as Station House Officer (SHO) of PS Seema Puri during the period 27.6.1991 to 27.4.1992 shown negligence and dereliction of duty by not registering a case and keeping the inquest report pending. The Inquiry Officer (IO) in his finding held him guilty of the charge but exonerated SI Brij Mohan, who was the investigating officer. The punishment imposed when assailed before the Tribunal after appeal was set side being multiple in nature. On re-examination the penalty imposed and affirme...

Shri B.K. Sharma S/O Sh. Hans Raj Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By present OA, challenge is made to orders dated 06/20th September, 2005, 25th August, 2005 and 08th August, 2003 rejecting applicant's request for grant of pay scale relating to IRM Cadre. Applicant also seeks direction to Respondents to make payment of said higher post of Head Clerk (Office Supervisor) on which post he is alleged to have worked during the period from 16.09.1997 to 31.10.2000 as well as to determine his retirement benefits on that basis with all consequential benefits including interest & costs.2. Admitted facts of the case are that the applicant joined Respondents as Sorting Assistant in the year 1964 and promoted to post of LSG w.e.f. 30.11.1983 under Time Bound One Promotion (hereinafter referred as 'TBOP' Scheme on completion of 16 years of satisfactory service in the basic grade. He was further promoted to the next higher pay scale of HSG-II under BCR Scheme w.e.f. 01.10.1991 on completion of 26 years of service. It is further claimed that he was appointe...

Bhisham Kumar Head Clerk Gr. Ii Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, in this OA, seeks direction to Respondent to grant arrears of pay & allowances on his retrospective promotion as UDC from 05.06.1982 and as Head Clerk w.e.f. 14.05.1997 along with interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of arrears.2. Admitted facts are that while working as Inspector, Food & Supplies, Circle No.27, during the year 1979, he was implicated in corrupt activities under Prevention of Corruption Act and being found guilty of an offence under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of aforesaid Act read with Section 161, IPC, he was sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- by the Ld. Special Judge, Delhi.On a Criminal appeal preferred before Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the said conviction awarded by Ld. Special Judge was set aside & appeal was allowed vide Judgment dated 08.01.1999 with following observations: In view of the law laid down regarding grant of sanction and the parameters within which the sanctioning authority...

J.N. Jha S/O Shri S.K. Jha Vs. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. As per our religious and vedantic account place of a guru (teacher) is paramount and a guru has been placed at the pedestal of Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu, Guru Devo Maheswaraha. The paramount task of the teacher in nation building is to impart not only learning and wisdom to the students but also make them virtuous, morally strong with a positive frame of mind. A fundamental duty enshrined upon a teacher to prove one's worth as an ideal teacher like Guru Draunacharya Guru Balmiki and Guru Rabindra Nath Tagore. What is expected from a teacher is idealism.A sin committed by a sinner can be treated but once this sin emanates from guru, it is not only depreciable but also sinnest of the sin. A Teacher with all logic and rationale has to be equated with parents till a student completes his education. The role of a father or mother to impart basic values and virtues to a student is being imparted by a guru. When a creator becomes destructor, the situation would become so complex that the ...

Karan Priya Gautam S/O Shri Attar Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicants have challenged the order dated 7.5.2004 whereby they have been informed that they will not be entitled for the notional pay fixation since no such relief was given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Ishwar Singh Khatri and Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 1900/1987). They have further sought a direction to the respondents to fix their pay from the date of grant of seniority i.e. 1994 and pay all consequential benefits, including arrears.2. It is submitted by the applicants that they had applied for the post of TGT in response to the advertisement issued in June, 1994. They were selected also but appointment letters were not issued. Being aggrieved, they filed OA No. 1238/96 and 1104/96, which were decided on 2.6.1997 as well as on 9.3.1999 (pages 21 and 17) whereby directions were given to the respondents to review the eligibility of the applicants for appointment to the posts of TGT (Natural Science), in accordance with the amend...

P.P. Sayed Vs. the Administrator, U.T. of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ23CAT

1. On the basis of a contemplated disciplinary proceedings, the applicant, working as Junior Engineer (Electrical) was suspended by order dated 27.07.1993 vide Annexure A-l. No proceedings under the disciplinary rules were initiated, though, a criminal case No. 37/98 was filed in the Sessions (Special) Court for Lakshadweep at Ernakulam.The criminal case, however, ended in the applicant's acquittal vide Annexure A-2 judgment dated 23.10.1999. The suspension, however continued despite the applicant's representation (Annexure A-3) for revocation of suspension after the acquittal. It was by Annexure A-4 order dated 29.03.2000 that the authorities revoked the suspension. At the time of suspension in 1993, the pay of the applicant was Rs. 1720 in the grade of Rs 1400-2300 and though the respondents had fixed the pay of the applicant under the revised scale of Rs 5,000 - 8000, the pay was not fixed at Rs. 5,300/- corresponding to the earlier pay of Rs. 1720/- but was fixed at the minimum i....

Rajbala (Legal Heir And Widow Of Vs. Union Of India (Uoi) Through It'S

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, widow of Late Shri Daya Nand, who died on 11.11.1998 in harness, leaving behind applicant & 4 minor children ( 3 daughters, aged 12, 7 & 5 years & a son aged 1 year & the fifth child born in January, 1999), in this application seeks compassionate appointment against any Group 'D' post with consequential benefits.2. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier she had filed OA No.3056/2004, which had been disposed of vide order dated 18.07.2005 with following observation and direction: 7. In view of the above facts, respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant sympathetically and as per rules. Her claim for compassionate appointment on any post for which she is considered suitable should be considered. The respondents are also directed to pass a speaking and a reasoned order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after considering the eligibility of the applicant as well as her financial conditions. 8. The...