Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court January 2007 Judgments

Smt. Veena Nayyar W/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. Insofar as the relief of furnishing the important papers to the applicant is concerned, the same has become infructuous. As regards relief 8(i), which, inter alia, pertains to release of GIS, it is stated in the counter reply that the same would be disbursed to the applicant within a period of two months from today.2. Insofar as the relief of interest on GPF is concerned, it is trite that GPF is an amount, which is in custody of the Government for which the Government in late disbursement is legally bound to pay interest as per the GPF rates prevalent at the relevant time. It is also equally settled that once the GPF installments have not been paid by the employee, he is also liable to pay interest on the aforesaid.3. In such view of the matter, the applicant whose application and legal notice for GPF have culminated into initiation of process of payment to the widow on 20.10.2004, the same was ultimately disbursed to the applicant on 25.11.2005.4. The respondents, in their reply, ...

Smt. Bhagirathi, Smt. Radha Vs. Nct of Delhi, Through the Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA 1965/2005 seeking joining together is allowed, particularly in the absence of any strong opposition by the respondents.2. Three applicants in present OA seek direction to respondent nos. 3-4 to finalize their claim for grant of uniform allowance, washing allowance and nursing allowance under the Rules & in terms of Government of India rates besides seeking quashment of communication dated 15.4.2005 with all consequential benefits. Initially, the OA was disposed of at the admission stage vide order dated 06.10.2005 with direction to respondent Nos. 3-4 to take a final decision in the matter. A liberty was also accorded to the applicants to revive the OA in case they are still aggrieved. Later, respondent No. 3 passed order dated 23.11.2005 stating that: this Ministry is not the nodal Ministry to decide upon the matter of allowances to be paid to the nursing staff of the Directorate of Social Welfare.Therefore, by MA 341/2006, the OA was revived vide order dated 26.4.2006.3. A...

Smt. Usha Sharma Wd/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. The only impediment in release of family pension to the widow is that she has re-married, as transpired on information by the official respondents by the mother of the deceased railway servant. As we know that to disentitle a valid legal claim where the right of family pension is bestowed upon the widow of the deceased employee under the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, this right can be curtailed only when it is established through evidence that the widow has re-married.3. In such view of the matter, mere information without any proof by the mother is not a valid piece of material to impede the right of family pension of widow. However, keeping in view the welfare of the minor child, this OA stands disposed of with direction to the applicant that in the event an affidavit is filed as to denial of re-marriage by the widow, the matter would be processed seeking comments from the mother of the deceased employee and in the event no proof of re-marriage is available, then the case for family...

Dr. B.N. Acharya, Deputy Medical Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through It ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. In the light of an order passed by the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare dated 19.10.2006, transfer of the applicant in pursuance of the directions of this Tribunal in OA-2742/2004 on 22.11.2004 having been kept in abeyance, applicant is deemed to be on duty with the Govt. of NCT of Delhi, which has a legal responsibility to pay to the applicant the pay and allowances during the interregnum.3. It is also trite that once the transfer orders are kept in abeyance, the person is restored back to the original post where he is functioning, i.e., Aruna Asaf Ali (Govt.) Hospital. However, to transfer a person within the Govt. of NCT is the prerogative of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi.4. In such view of the matter, OA stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents, i.e., Govt. of NCT of Delhi to consider posting the applicant at the old place from where he has been transferred and to pay him the pay and allowances from September 2006 to till date. This shall be done within a perio...

Shri Prakash Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ312CAT

1. In this O.A. the primary relief sought by the applicant is quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 12.1.2006 (Annexure A-l), with a direction to the respondents to make payment of Rs. 49,290/-, being the balance amount of medical reimbursement claimed on account of his medical treatment, with interest at the market rates.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant stood retired as Assistant from the office of the Director General Supplies and Disposal w.e.f. 28.2.1995. He had a whole-life CGHS Token Card bearing No.P-620727. As the applicant was suffering from severe coronary artery triple vessal disease (Heart ailment), he was taken to Batra Hospital and Medical Research Centre, New Delhi (Batra Hospital, for short). He was examined by the concerned doctor at Batra Hospital and was found in need of undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery at the earliest. Chief Cardiac Surgeon of Batra Hospital, in his Certificate dated 27.2.2000, intimated that ...

Syed Iftekhar Ahmed S/O Syed Vs. the Central Provident Fund

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. MA No. 22/2007: The MA is for condonation of delay in filing the OA.It is stated that there is a delay of 10 months and 25 days in filing the application. The reason stated is that the applicant had filed a contempt petition vide CP No. 53/2006 and that after the lapse of one year it was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the applicant to resort to other remedies, if any available. Even going by the said averment it is seen that the applicant waited for one year from the date of impugned order for filing the contempt petition. There is absolutely no explanation for such delay. Though Shri Izhar Ahmed, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the delay occurred in the above circumstances, it will be difficult for us to take the view that the delay has been satisfactorily explained.2. However, we have gone through the impugned order and the averments in the OA. The applicant sought for implementation of a scheme evidenced by Annexure A6. It is seen that the said scheme prov...

B.Sc. Mlt Laboratory Technicians Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ327CAT

1. The first applicant is an association of Science Degree B.Sc.MLT-holders working as Laboratory Technicians in the second respondent's institution. The second applicant is one of the members of the association working as laboratory technician. They have prayed for the following relief: 1. This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue directions directing the respondents to take a decision as to the equivalence of a certificate-holder and a diploma-holder in laboratory technology approved by All India Council for Technical Education in consonance with the requirement of the recruitment rules for the post of technical assistant and not otherwise. 2. And thereafter to effect promotions to the post of Technical Assistant by considering the qualification of Laboratory Technicians in consonance with the requirement of the recruitment rules, which is in force as on the date of arising of vacancies and as unamended today and 3. Pass such further and/or other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal m...

Shri O. Sannaboraiah S/O Late K.B. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Represent ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. The applicant who is working as a Senior Technical Assistant in the second respondent's organisation has filed this OA challenging an order dated 12.01.2007 (Annexure A3) issued by the first respondent transfering the surplus post of Senior Technical Assistant along with the incumbent the applicant herein from CPDO (SR) Bangalore to CPDO (WR) Mumbai. Mr Srikanth R., learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order vitiated for two reasons (1) The transfer during the middle of the academic year. The applicant's two children are studying in College and in School and that if the transfer order is implemented their studies will be interrupted (2) The respondents have stated that under the second respondent there is surplus as per the restructuring order but the said restructuring order has not been implemented and therefore the transfer order on the ground of excess is also vitiated. The counsel submits that the applicant has filed a representation dated 17.01.2007 (An...

Shri B. Chandrasekharm S/O (Late) Vs. the Director, National Aerospace

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. Applicants two in number working as Officiating Assistant Grade-I under the first respondent, have filed this OA seeking the following reliefs: i) call for the relevant records leading to the issuance of the impugned office memorandum in No. 5(51)/2004-A1 dated 22/12/2005 (ANNEXURES A-15 & A-16) and on perusal, ii) direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants (taking into account of the length of service) for further promotion to the cadre of Assistant (General) Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-175-9000 and grant all consequential benefits while declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicants but in promoting the Respondents 5 & 6 who are juniors to the applicants as Assistant (General) Grade I vide office memorandum in No. 7(1)/2005/A1 dated 21/6/2005 (ANNEXURE A-13) so far it relates to the 5th and 6th respondents, as arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore void and also quash and set aside the impugned office mem...

Smt. G. Lalita W/O Shri G.V.S.S. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge is made to order dated 25th July, 2006 whereby applicant has been transferred to Kolkata along with the post.2. Factual matrix is that applicant appointed as 'Computer' in the Central Statistical Organization (hereinafter referred as CSO) vide order dated 12.07.1990, promoted as Junior Investigator in 1995, was further promoted as Senior Investigator on ad-hoc basis vide order dated 01.02.2001. Based on 5th CPC recommendations, a Subordinate Statistical S ervice was constituted and she opted to be part of said service. 4 officials, including applicant filed OA No. 2137/2002 seeking regularization and counting of ad hoc service in said grade, was disposed of vide order dated 29.05.2003 with direction to consider her claim in accordance with law whenever regular vacancy arises and further that applicant shall not be reverted unless someone promoted on ad hoc basis to Grade IV of ISS is reverted. Vide impugned order dated 25.07.2006, applicant on the sanctioned strength of N...