Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court March 2007 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.
V.K. Sareen S/O Late Shri D.N. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Applicant, a PAO, has assailed the memorandum dated 28.2.2003 issued under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. Quashing of the aforesaid as well as enquiry report dated 1.7.2005 on the ground of inordinate and unexplained delay in initiating and concluding the proceedings has been sought.2. Learned Counsel of applicant would contend that whereas the allegations framed against applicant do not involve any grave misconduct or any corrupt motive imputed, yet initiating an enquiry on the allegations of 1988 in 2003 is not only inordinate but unexplained, which has resulted in deprivation of a reasonable opportunity to defend as the objections raised consistently before the authorities of belated enquiry, causing prejudice having been taken into consideration and as a result thereof certain documents which could not be procured by the respondents at this remotest point of time has caused prejudice to applicant. Learned Counsel has relie...
Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri V.R. Gupta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. The applicant herein had, during May, 2006 submitted this application, incorporating a prayer that Office Memorandum dated 20.6.1997 issued to him is to be quashed, including the further proceedings that might have been contemplated. Application also included a prayer that he was entitled to be extended the benefits, which normally might have come to him, and which stands denied because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, evidenced by the Office Memorandum, referred to earlier (Annexure A-1).2. Interim orders have been passed on 12.7.2006, whereby the respondents had been restrained from passing final orders in the pending disciplinary proceedings. Practically, the defence of the respondents had been struck off because they failed to come up with the counter statement and the matter was heard at length. Of course, the Department had been permitted to address us citing from the files, which they were presumed to be having.3. Indeed, a dismal picture, has become evident....
Shri M.L. Chandna S/O Late Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chie ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Applicant, who retired on 31.12.2005, as Foreman, has sought for following reliefs: (i) to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the Applicant for the post of Lecturer or on the post of Foreman-Instructor in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000, as illegal, arbitrary and the same action may be quashed. (ii) to direct the respondents to consider the case of the Applicant for the post of Lecturer/Foreman-Instructor in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000 from the due date, forthwith with all consequential benefits; (iii) to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper.2. Applicant, who joined as Foreman, possesses a Bachelor's Degree in Electronic and Telecommunication. The Madan Committee constituted on staff structure in Engineering Institutions, insofar as Engineering Colleges are concerned, recommended minimum rung as Lecturer but for Polytechnics, Lecturer has been recommended as the lowest formation of teaching facility wherea...
Mr. Zafar Ali Khan S/O Mr. Mohd. Vs. the Principal Chief Postmaster
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. We have heard extensively the arguments of Ms. Anuradha, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mrs. K. Rajitha, learned Counsel for the respondents.2. The applicant has filed this OA with the prayer to set aside the charge sheet and the impugned order of the 1st respondent dated 8.2.2006 confirming the order of the 2nd respondent dated 8.2.2002 imposing removal from service and thereby denying the pension under Rule 48(A) of CCS (Pension) Rules and also direct the respondents to accept his voluntary retirement with effect from January 2000 and to extend him all consequential benefits.3. A look at the brief facts of the case would present the correct perspective of the issue involved. The applicant herein entered the Postal Department in the Extra Departmental cadre in 1968 and became a Postman in 1973 and was posted in Begum Bazar under SSPO, Hyderabad in 1977. He was further promoted to the TBOP cadre in 1989 and later on promoted to the cadre of BCR with effect from 1.1.2000. For...
Ashok Kumar Sharma S/O Siri Chand Vs. Vice Chairman, K
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Challenge is made to penalty of dismissal inflicted vide order dated 5.11.2002 as upheld vide appellate and revisional authorities' orders dated 29.9.2003 and 23.3.2006 with all consequential benefits including reinstatement, costs, etc.2. Applicant was initially appointed to the post of Audit Assistant in the year 1984, re-designated as Assistant Superintendent. He was proceeded for certain misconducts vide charge-Memorandum dated 16.5.2000, which contained six articles of charges, namely: Article-I During 1999-2000 remained absent from duty willfully. Moreover on some occasions Shri Sharma putting his signature in the staff attendance register left the office without any information. Article-II During 1999-2000 failed to perform his assigned duties willfully. Article-III During 1999-2000 on 15.10.99 abused the Administrative Officer during morning hours and also to Education Officer Shri M.S. Chauhan and Shri R.K. Nair, Superintendent (Admn) at about 1730 hrs. in the presence of ...
Shri Siddharth Prakash Rastogi Vs. the Secretary Personnel, Union of
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 1st March, 2001 is assailed in present OA. Applicant also seeks direction to respondents to consider him for promotion to the post PGT against the quota for blind in terms of order dated 18th July, 2000 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1807/1999.2. Admitted facts are that applicant, a disabled blind, was appointed as TGT (History) in April, 1992. National Federation for the Blind and Anr. TGT filed OA No. 1807/1999 seeking quashing of all orders not continuing reservation to persons with disabilities in promotion from TGT to PGT/Lecturers to the extent of 3% distributed to the extent of 1% each for persons with visual impairment, hearing impairment and persons with locomotor disabilities in terms of Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Full Participation and Protection of Rights) Act, 1995. Said OA was disposed of vide order dated 19th July, 2000 with following observations: 8. This OA is therefore disposed of with a ...
Dr. B.N. Mittal S/O Late Shri B.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Applicant, a retired Deputy Director General (DDG) in the Directorate General of Health Services, has impugned Presidential order dated 29.7.2004, whereby on a disciplinary proceeding post retirement a penalty of 100% pension cut on permanent basis along with forfeiture of entire gratuity has been imposed upon him, under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.2. Applicant while working as DDG, retired on superannuation on 31.1.1998. As he was placed under deemed suspension before his superannuation, a deemed proceeding under Rule 9 (2) of the Pension Rules ibid was instituted against him, on the following allegations: STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST DR. B.N. MITTAL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (LEPROSY), LATER DESIGNATED AS ADDL. DG, (SINCE RETIRED), DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, DELHI. Dr. B.N. Mittal, while working as Deputy Director General (Leprosy), later designated as Addl. DG (since retired), failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a ma...
M. Sharanappa Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The grievance of the applicant is that though he joined as Khalasi in the year 1974 in Loco at Khazipet he has not been given any promotion till now. According to the applicant he joined as a Loco Khalasi in the year 1974 and he was given promotion as Khalasi Helper in the year 1988. In the year 1994 loco stream was abolished and the surplus staff therein was absorbed in Electrical Department. A provisional seniority list has been circulated in May 1999 in respect of the Electrical Department. In that seniority list the name of the applicant is shown against Sl. No. 50 showing his date of entry into service as Khalasi Helper on 30.12.1994. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that several Khalasis appointed along with him in Electrical Wing who have been appointed subsequent to his original wing in Loco Shed have been shown as seniors to him and that his service in Loco...
Dr. Satya Pal (Vats), Lecturer in Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. The applicant holds a Doctorate, awarded to him during June, 1996.He had vast experience as a Lecturer in the Maharshi Dayanand University and had performed duties of Warden of Hostel in addition to his teaching job. Therefore, when the UPSC had advertised during June, 2005 for the post of Principal in Government Arts Science College at Chandigarh, as he sufficiently possessed the qualifications stipulated, he had responded.2. The prescribed qualification was Master's Degree with minimum 50% marks from a recognized University plus Ph.D or equivalent qualification. Ten years teaching/research experience in University/College was also a mandatory requirement. Inter alia, advertisement referred to the duty of the incumbent of imparting teaching to college students and administrative control of the college.3. Notwithstanding all these attainments the applicant followed, he had not been invited for the interview. The O.A. was filed at this point of time, praying that the respondent UPSC...
Pradeep Kumar Verma S/O Shri Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-30-2007
1. Applicants, Lab Technicians on contract basis seek benefit of pay and allowances as admissible to regular employees with a further direction to place them in the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000, which has been allowed on revision to regular Lab Assistants.2. None appeared for applicants, even on the second call. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter in terms of Rule 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.3. In the OA it is contended that while performing the same duties when the pay scale of Lab Assistants has been revised to Rs. 4,000-6,000 from 1.5.2003, in OA-2157/2002 - Shashi Kala and Ors. v. Director of Health Services and Ors. decided on 24.9.2002, this Tribunal directed payment of salary as admissible to regular OTT, mutatis mutandis extends to the present case as well.State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia AIR 1989 SC 19, has been relied upon to invoke the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.5. On the other hand, learned Counsel app...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »