Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court May 2006 Judgments

R.D. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ1CAT

1. O.A. bearing No. 252 of 2005 has been filed by the applicant, R.D.Srivastava (of the address given in the notice) against chargesheet, issued to him, by the respondents vide memo dated 27.4.2005. Applicant vide this O.A., has challenged the validity of the aforesaid memorandum of charges.2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant after joining Military Engineering Services was posted as Garrison Engineer (Electrical and Mechanical), Kheria Agra Air Force Station in September, 1998. Applicant was granted selection grade to the post of Executive Engineer in the year 2001. A memorandum of charge was issued to him on 27.4.2005 under Rule 16 of the C.C.S. (CCA.) Rules, 1965. The charges levelled in the memorandum relate to supply order issued to Krishna Engineering Works, Agra Cantt, Agra and M/s. S.M. Construction, Agra Cantt, Agra. It is alleged therein that orders for purchase of Ball Bearings were placed with the aforesaid firms on freakishly high rates. It has also been alle...

Ravinder Singh Lamba Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ237CAT

1. Applicant - Shri R.S. Lamba, was a member of the State Forest Service, Haryana. He was confirmed with effect from 29.3.1982. Claims that on completion of 8 years of service i.e. in October 1988, he had become eligible for appointment by promotion to the Indian Forest Service under I.F.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1966. He has given details to plead that 8 actual vacancies were determined for the year 1990 by Union of India in consultation with the State Government and, thus, State Forest Service Officers were required to be considered for 8+2 i. e. 10 points for being placed on the panel of 10 candidates as per Annexure A-3. Despite the State Govt. writing to the other respondents, no meeting was held for preparing the panels for 1990 or 1991. Ultimately, meeting of the Select Committee i.e. UPSC, was held on 31.3.1993 and recommendations made but the same could not be approved due to the interim orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court in a writ petition. Thereafter, ...

Ramesh Chandra S/O Lt. Shyam Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicants have filed this Original Application for a direction to the respondents to re-fix the first financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short ACPS') in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- (in lieu of the scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- already granted), with effect from the respective dates on completion of 12 years of service by them and with consequential benefits arising therefrom.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants entered into government service as Punch Card Operators in the then Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, New Delhi, during 1989.Consequent upon rationalization of Electronic Data Processing Posts, the applicants were designated as Data Entry Operator (Grade `A'). Upon revision of pay scales on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the applicants were initially placed in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000/-, but subsequently reduced to normal replacement scale of Rs. 3050-4590/-. Thereupon, ...

Pranab Kumar Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Guwahati

Reported in: (2006)(3)SLJ124CAT

1. The applicant has been working as Section Engineer and posted at Bongaigaon who was allotted Type-III quarter being quarter No. R/99-A, which has been occupied by his wife who is also working as Female Dresser under the respondent No. 6. The wife of the applicant has instituted a Title Suit (M) No. 20/2000 before the learned District Judge, Bongaigaon and a decree was obtained on 24.9.2000 in her favour for judicial separation on condition that the applicant would pay to his wife Rs. 2000 per month in the joined account that would be opened in the United Bank of India and would pay Rs. 2500 on the day of leaving the house occupied by the wife. It was also stipulated therein "The quarter occupied by the petitioner shall vacate within 6 months from 24.9.2000" (Annexure-1). According to the averments made in the application, he was paying the amount of Rs. 2000 per month to the wife and he has started to live separately in a rented house. The application of his wife before the learned...

Kanchan Kapoor and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents on MA No. 865/2006 for interim relief prayed for.2. Arguments are restrained only to dispose of the Miscellaneous Application filed by the applicants seeking a stay of order passed by Senior Administrative Officer for Station Director, All India Radio, New Delhi as well as and an interim order directing the respondents to maintain status quo as regards the services of the applicants in All India Radio, till the final disposal of the Original Application.3. The applicants were appointed as Casual Production Assistants/Artists on contract basis between 1987 and 1990 by All India Radio. They have been seeking regularization of their services as Production Assistants, later re-designated as Transmission Executives (TREX for short) in All India Radio. In compliance of order dated 18.09.1992 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 822/1991, All India Radio prepared and implemented a Scheme for Regularization of Casual Production a...

Shri Sewa Dass Nimbaker, Retd. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This case has a chequered history, as could be noticed from the details noticed hereinunder. By the present OA, applicant seeks following relief: b) Direct the respondents to place the name of the applicant in the select panel dated 9.10.1992 for promotion to Group-B Service in Commercial Branch of T(T) & C Department against 75% quota at the appropriate place and be granted notional promotion (as the applicant has retired) and further grant all consequential benefits. Pass such further order or orders which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.2. The controversy raised in present OA is whether applicant qualified in selection held in the year 1992 for Group-B Service in Commercial Branch of Respondent. The facts as stated are that Respondent issued notice for selection for promotion to Group-B Service in Commercial Branch against 75% quota on 21.4.1992. He was shown as eligible for said selection communication dated 17...

ishwar Singh (Retired Asi) Vs. Shri K.K. Paul, Commissioner of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. OA No.52/2006 seeking direction to respondents to pay washing allowance, conveyance allowance, special pay/salary of one month as the period of suspension had been treated as spent on duty, was disposed of by order dated 10.1.2006 with the following directions: 4. Accordingly, OA is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to treat the present OA as a representation made by the applicant to the respondents for redressal of his grievances and the respondents are directed to consider this representation and decide it within two months from the date on which the copy of the aforesaid representation and the copy of the order of the Tribunal is received by them. Counsel for applicant has undertaken to serve a copy of the aforesaid representation and copy of this order of the Tribunal on the respondents within one week. OA stands disposed of in above terms. 5. It will be open to the applicant to approach this Tribunal in accordance with law in case her grievances survive after t...

Ex. Constable Nagraj S/O Jhoota Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA has been challenged punishment of dismissal from service on the charge of unauthorized and wilful absence without any intimation/prior permission of the competent authority after transfer.It was alleged that applicant had remained absent in this manner from 17.5.2001 to 9.5.2002. Applicant has sought quashment of the impugned orders by which applicant was dismissed from service and reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.2. The learned Counsel of applicant has challenged the disciplinary proceedings against applicant resulting in the punishment of dismissal from service on the following grounds: (1) The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against applicant in violation of Rule 14(4) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter called the 1980 Rules) inasmuch as orders for the enquiry were issued by DCP, New Delhi District, who was no longer the competent authority as applicant stood transferred to the disciplinary contr...

Krishna Raja P. and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Vide this application has been sought review of Tribunals orders dated 14.2.2006 whereby OA No. 382/2006 was dismissed in limine. (1) While applicants had claimed that the 3rd, 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (CPCs) had accorded parity of pay scales between applicants who are Accountants in the accounts cadre of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), Cabinet Secretariat, Department of Cabinet Affairs, Government of India, and Accountants of the organized cadres of other Ministries/Departments, the Tribunal could not have asked for extracts of the reports of the CPCs where such parity was considered by them. Applicants maintained that such a query is not relevant to the issue.In State of Mizoram v. Mizoram Engineering Service Association , the Honble Supreme Court has held that there should hardly be any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as the government service is concerned and such a distinction will not have any relevance in the matter of granting parity sinc...

Shri P.K. Sharma, Adviser (ir) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this order, we are considering a prayer made for grant of interim relief to restrain the Respondents from considering/posting a non-IRPS Officer as Additional Member (Staff) in terms of judgment rendered by this Tribunal in S.C. Manchanda v. UOI, OA No. 211/2002 decided on 08.07.2002 and to consider the Applicant herein for posting as Additional Member (Staff) even by downgrading the post as was done in case of Shri Manchanda, till the final disposal of the O.A.2. Necessary background facts, which are required to be noticed are that Applicant was initially encadred in the Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers with DOITS as 07.04.1977, was inducted into Indian Railway Personnel Service (IRPS in short) in the year 1986. The said Group A organized service, i.e. IRPS, was constituted in the year 1975 and options for induction in the said service after adjudging suitability by a High Powered Selection Committee including a Member of UPSC were invited in terms of Railway Boar...