Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court February 2006 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.
D.P. Ghosal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Kolkata
Decided on: Feb-28-2006
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ327CAT
1. 7 (seven) applicants, who are working as O/S Grade I in the Office of CCM/Claims, S.E. Railway, Calcutta, have jointly filed this application challenging the selection process initiated by the respondents for filling up ten newly created posts of Chief Office Superintendent.2. The applicants belong to unreserved community and at the relevant time they were working as O/S Grade I under the respondents. By a Railway Board letter dated 10.5.98 by way of restructuring, 10 posts of Chief Office Superintendent in scale of Rs. 7450-11500 have been created in Claims Section of CCS Office of S.E. Railway, Calcutta with effect from 10.5.98. The applicants were hopeful to get promotions in the aforesaid higher posts, but to their utter dismay they found that the respondent authorities have called ten persons, who are private respondents in this OA, (all of whom belong to reserved category), in the selection process. The applicants contend that without disclosing the break-up of the vacancies ...
All India Sc/St Association and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-27-2006
Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ184CAT
1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking following reliefs: (a) This Hon'ble Tribunal pleased to call for the records of the case and after going through the same, be pleased to order and direct the respondents to call only 5 General community candidates for selection to 1 Group 'B' post and their action of calling 11 persons for filling-up of 1 General post/ vacancy, may be declared as illegal and arbitrary. (b) This Hon'ble Tribunal will be pleased to declare that the Applicants are entitled and eligible to be called for selection for 1 post each for SC/ST and accordingly, they should be called for selection. (c) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to order and direct the respondents to call the applicant Nos. 2 along with other 4 senior ST candidates for selection to Group 'B' post reserved for ST community and applicant Nos. 3, 4 and other 3 senior SC candidates for selection to Group 'B' post reserved for SC community and afford them an opportunity to appear for the sel...
Lalit Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Decided on: Feb-24-2006
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ12CAT
1. Feeling aggrieved by the orders passed by Chandigarh Administration, the applicants who are many in numbers have preferred these O.As.challenging their transfer orders. These applicants are the employees of Chandigarh Administration working in various departments and have been transferred to Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh (for short MCC).They have been holding substantive/permanent or promotional posts in their respective Departments/Wings. Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in all these 19 O.As., these are dispose of by passing one common order. However, we are making a reference to most of the facts as pleaded in the case of Lalit Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. O.A. No. 218/CH/2OO5 and Sardara Singh and Ors. v. UOl and Ors. O.A. No. 1067/CH/04. The applicants are also allowed to file joint Applications.2. The applicants, in nutshell, in all these O.As. have prayed for following reliefs: (i) Quash the action of the respondents in inviting options...
Vasu Anchan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT
Decided on: Feb-23-2006
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ31CAT
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the action of the Respondent ('R' for short) No. 3 in suo motu revising the order issued by R-4 who was the Reviewing Authority ('RA' for short) for the applicant. While the applicant was working as EDD A in the Postal Department, he was proceeded under Rule 8 of EDA (C & A) Rules, 1964 ('1964 Rules' for short) vide memo dated 31.12.1999. The Disciplinary Authority, ('DA' for short) on 31.3.2003 imposed the penalty of removal from service on the applicant. The applicant preferred an appeal to R-5 which was rejected on 28.10.2003. He filed a revision petition to R4 on 28.11.2003. R4 revised the order of penalty to that of debarring the applicant for three years from appearing in examination for the post of Postman, Postal Assistant, etc. vide order dated 23.6.2004. On 9.8.2004, R3 exercising his power to revise the order suo motu issued a notice to the applicant asking him to explain why the penalty of removal should not be imposed on him. The appli...
S.P. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ294CAT
1. By virtue of the present Original Application a challenge has been made to an order passed on 30.08.2005 placing the applicant under suspension on a contemplated disciplinary proceeding. An order passed on 16.09.2005 is also assailed whereby the applicant, for the purposes of withdrawal of salary/subsistence allowance from 13.06.2005, is posted as Commissioner Central Excise, Bhopal and thereafter showing him against the post of Commissioner, Central Excise (A), Aurangabad.2. Applicant has also sought release of retiral benefits as calculated on 1.9.2005 as well as salary due from June, 2005.3. Brief factual matrix, relevant to be highlighted as an intricate part of adjudication, transpires that the applicants, who is an officer of 1973 batch of Indian Revenue Services, was lastly posted as Commissioner (Appeal) Central Excise, Bhopal in May, 2005, by an application dated 10.05.2005. having completed 30 years of qualifying service, sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.09.2005 i.e....
Govind Anand Karawande Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-22-2006
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ389CAT
1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 02.9.2003 passed by respondent No. 2 whereby forfeiture of total pension was ordered with immediate effect.2. The facts of the case giving rise to filing of this O.A. are that the applicant while working as Junior Telecom Officer in Pune Telecom District was caught by Anti Corruption Bureau on 31.10.1989 while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 1000. The applicant was convicted by order dated 18.6.1998 by special Judge Pune in Special Case No. 21/93 and was sentenced to undergo regorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000. The applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 604/98 in Bombay High Court. He was released on bail by Bombay High Court order dated 15.7.1998. Thereafter, the applicant filed Criminal Application No. 3584/98 for suspending the sentence in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal No. 604/98. The High Court passed order dated 21.12.1998 allowing the criminal application in terms of prayer Clause (B). Applicant stated ...
Deepak S. Dave and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ335CAT
1. Aggrieved by the notification dated 26.10.05 reserving 20 of 34 posts of Loco Pilot (Goods Driver Goods) Gr.II for being filled up by members of SC/ST, the applicants, who belong to general category, have preferred the present O.A. They have sought for quashing of the same. It is proposed to hold a selection for promotion to the post of Loco Pilot Goods/Gr.II/Driver Goods scale Rs. 5000-8000 (RSRP). The assessed vacancies are 34, out of which 16 posts are reserved for SC and 04 posts are reserved for ST as per post based roster of reservation for the category of Loco Pilot (Goods) Gr.II scale Rs. 5000-8000 including shortfall/requirement of SCs/STs in the category of Loco Pilot (Mail) and Loco Pilot (Pass Gr.II/II and Loco Pilot (Goods) Gr.I scale Rs. 5500-9000 (RSRP).3. The grievance of the applicant is that the newly created Ahmedabad Division also includes a part of erstwhile Rajkot Division. There is no shortfall of SC/ST in the Rajkot Division as it exists today (Ann.A/3). The...
Hemant Kumar Nirmal and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna
Decided on: Feb-17-2006
Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ7CAT
1. This O.A. has been filed by the applicants against the order of the respondents dated 16.2.2005 (Annexurc-13) whereby they were reverted back to the post of PGT.2. The brief facts of the case is that the applicants had been duly appointed as Principal on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the Competent Authority had approved the appointment of the applicants as Principal. The applicants were initially appointed in the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (in short KVS) as Post Graduate Teachers.As per the recruitment notice which was published in the Employment News by the KVS by which applications were invited for various posts including the post of Principal. Apart from mentioning essential qualification, the employment notice also stated that the KVS may hold a written test and thereafter call the candidates for interview on the basis of merit test for academic, professional and other qualification.It was also stated that the selected candidates are liable to be posted an...
R.K. Katti Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)(92)SLJ395CAT
1. In both the O.A. Nos. 713/2003 and 758/2003, the issues involved and the reliefs sought for are similar. The O.As. are heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.2. In O.A. No. 713/2003, the applicant was working as C.P.R.O. in Bombay Telephone which later on was converted into M.T.N.L. He joined the department on 28.2.1958 and retired voluntarily on 30.6.1983 after rendering 25 years and four months of qualifying service. He had attained the age of 49 years at the time of retirement and thus he was given weightage of one year only and his retiring pension was calculated on the basis of 26V4 years only according to Rule 48A CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.3. In O.A. 758/2003, the applicant was working as Scientific Officer/Engineer (Grade SE). He completed 20 years of qualifying service and voluntarily retired w.e.f. 5.5.1982 as per Rule 48(A). Both the petitioners had submitted representation for addition of five years qualifying service as per Rule 48B of CCS (Pension) ...
Vishwas Jayavantrao Bhosale Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Decided on: Feb-06-2006
Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ219CAT
1. In O.A. 291/2004 (V. J. Bhosale), O.A. 308/2004 (G.B. Maware. M.K.Thombare and S.J. Koche), O.A. 335/2004 (V.R. Kale), O.A. 409/2004 (S.K. Kamble) and O.A. 486/2004 (F.V. Vesave) the relief claimed is the same and a number of arguments on both the sides are common and, therefore, they are taken up together for orders. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to V.J. Bhosale (O.A. 291/2004) which will apply mutatis mutandis to other cases as well. Wherever in other cases separate arguments have been made, they will be mentioned accordingly.2. In O.A. 291/2004 (V.J. Bhosale) the following relief has been sought: (a) That this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the records and proceedings relating to the issuance of impugned notifications dated 25th April, 2003 and 29th March, 2004 (Annexure 'A-3' and Annexure 'A-7' are annexure hereto) more particularly the DPC proceedings of 2002 and 2003 from the office of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and after going through the legality, val...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »