Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court April 2007 Judgments

Ashok Kumar Arora S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, a retired Group 'B' officer, has assailed respondents' order dated 30.4.2004, whereby a disagreement Note has been arrived at by the disciplinary authority (DA) in the disciplinary proceedings. Also assailed is an order passed on 23.9.2004 in pursuance of a major penalty proceedings, imposing upon applicant a minor penalty of censure with treatment of absence period from 23.6.1999 to 26.5.2003 as extraordinary leave (EOL) without medical certificate. Lastly, the appellate order dated 9.12.2005, affirming the punishment is also assailed.2. Applicant, who had been earlier posted on hard stations, had been a chronic patient of bronchial asthma since 1998. While posted at Silchar, i.e., a place, which does not suit as per the climatic conditions, continuance of applicant due to his ailment was subjected to a medical examination regarding fitness of civilians in the field service on the basis of his bronchial asthma in 1994. The concerned graded speciali...

Shri Dhanai Prasad, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By present OA, applicant challenges Memorandum issued in December, 2005, received by him on 19.12.2005, whereby his representation dated 01.12.2005 for removing alleged anomaly in pay had been rejected.2. The facts as stated are that applicant is holding post of Superintendent in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan since December 1989 and had been drawing basic pay of Rs. 7,775/- as on 1.12.2005. His junior, viz. Smt. Shashi Khanna, who was promoted to said post in the year 1992 was drawing basic pay of Rs. 8,425/- as on 01.12.2005. Therefore, he submitted a representation dated 01.06.2005 (Annexure A/3) followed by reminder dated 1.12.2005, which ultimately had been rejected vide impugned communication.3. The grievance of applicant is that aforesaid Memorandum vide which his request has been rejected is evasive and in no manner falls in line with relevant rules and instructions on the subject. Applicant as well as Smt. Shashi Khanna had their initial appointment in Clerical cadre and app...

R.S. Shah Vs. the Controller, Controllerate of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. Heard Mr. S. Rama Krishna Rao, Ld. Counsel for the applicant and Mr.G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.2. This application has been filed by the applicant Under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking for the following reliefs: (a) to call for the records pertaining to the sanction and payment of pro-rata pension and other pensionery benefits of the applicant, consequent on his absorption in Public Enterprise and the payments made in respect of pension and pensionery benefits and declare the inaction on the part of the Respondents to settle the pensionery benefits, including difference in commutation value and interest on delayed payments of the pensionery benefits, as arbitrary, illegal, un-warranted, misconceived, against principles of natural justice, and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India; (b) to direct the respondents to settle the claims of the applicants for difference in commutation of pension and the int...

Shri Vinod Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(a) To call for the records and hold that the act of the Respondent was not justified in denying regularization to the Applicant in the services and further direct the Respondents to regularize the Applicant from the date of his successful completion of probation i.e. one year after the date of his joining; & To further direct the Respondents to calculate and pay the arrears of salary granting increments from the date Applicant became eligible to be appointed on regular basis with all consequential benefits and interest @ 18% over the amount, besides, damages for the losses suffered by him and declare the action of Respondent as illegal and arbitrary; & To further quash the process of recruitment/selection against the advertisement for the post of Sales Accountant/Technicians published in Hindi daily newspaper 'Amar Ujala' (Meerut News) dated 05.02.2006; and/or To further direct the Respondents not to appoint any other person on the post of the Applicant till the services of t...

Shri Kishan Lal Kamboj S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether applicant is entitled to first financial upgradation counting the period of notional appointment/regularization is the question raised in present OA? Applicant seeks direction to Respondents to convene Screening Committee and consider him for grant of first financial upgradation in pay scale of Rs. 6500-10,500/- with all consequential benefits including arrears, interest and costs.2. Admitted facts of the case are that applicant belonging to Scheduled Caste community commenced his career as a Casual Labour Artist under Respondents on 01-10-1985. When his juniors were being absorbed, overlooking his claim, he filed OA No. 443 of 1993, which was disposed of vide order dated 03-05-1993, directing concerned authorities to consider his case in the light of the scheme. Pursuant thereto, Respondents passed order in July, 1993, stating that as applicant was first engaged on 01-10-1985 when he did not attain age of 21, as prescribed under the Recruitment Rules for Group 'D' post, he...

Dr. S. Palanivelu and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras

Reported in: (2007)(3)SLJ367CAT

1. The applicants in all the three original applications have sought to quash the proceedings in A-22012/14/06 dated 12.9.2006, while the applicants in O.A. 128/2007 seek for a consequential direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider and appoint any of the applicants herein as Additional Director CGHS, Chennai in the place of the third respondent in conformity with the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as contained in the case of Dr. P.P.C. Rawani and Ors. v. Union of India Civil Appeal No. 3519/1994 with all attendant benefits; and for such further or other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.2. As the facts and circumstances in all the three O.As. as also the relief sought for are similar, the three O.As. are disposed of by this common order.3. The applicants in O.As. No. 891 and 894/2006 were appointed as Medical Officer on 11.10.1977 and 10.6.1977 and presently working as Chief Medical Officer (Non-F...

P. Maruthi Ram S/O Late P. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. This application has been filed by the applicant questioning the following orders issued by the 2nd respondent: 2. It is the case of the applicant that while he was working as Lower Division Clerk in the Military Engineering Service in Secunderabad in the year 1997, he applied for the post of Supervisor, Barracks/Stores, Gr. II in response to the advertisement issued by the respondents calling application from suitable candidates to fill up those posts. It is contended by the applicant that though it was a direct recruitment, departmental candidates were also permitted to apply for consideration.Applicant was selected and was given posting at Bhandara, Maharashtra where he served for 2 1/2 years and in the month of June 2000, he was transferred to Port Blair, a tenure station. As per the guidelines followed by the respondents, in tenure postings for which a normal period of 2 years and 18months of actual stay is sufficient for compliance of the tenure, he was not relieved and had b...

Munna Lal Son of Raja Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad

1. The applicant (Munna Lal) has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.8.1998 (Annexure 5) by which the Authority concerned refused to reengage or regularize him and is also praying for directing the respondents to regularize his services in the Department of Archeological Survey of India and to restrain them not to interfere in his working.2. His case in brief is that he was engaged in 1986 on daily wages in the office of Conservation Assistant, Sub Office Sarnath and since then continued working as such. It is said that inspite of repeated representation, the respondents have not regularized his services. It is averred in para 4.9 of the O.A that he filed one writ petition No.16162 of 1998 before the Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad, which the Court disposed of directing the respondent NO.2, to consider his representation. The impugned order dated 21.8.1998 has been passed on the said representation. It is said that in view of judgment dated 16.2.1990 rendered in Raj Kamal and Ors. ...

Rasool Bee Vs. the Chief Postmaster General, the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. This application has been filed seeking for an order seting aside the impugned order dated 19.5.2005 and consequently to direct the respondents to accommodate her in the department on compassionate grounds. It is the case of the applicant that her husband late Md.Ahmed Pasha joined in service on 25.7.1979 as EDBPM, Anantharam BO.Subsequently he was promoted and died in harness on 20.3.2000 due to ill health. The applicant was selectd for appointment in Group-D cadre on compassionate appointment and was directed to go for practicsal training vide memo No. B3.Gr.D/CA/Dlgs/02 dated 18.4.2002. The applicant completed the training on 24.4.2002. The applicant submitted the affidavit showing her date of birth to the Respondents. Respondent No. 3 issued a letter to the Gandhi Hospital authorities for medical examination to ascertain the fitness of the applicant vide letter dated 26.4.2002. The authorities accordingly examined the applicant and declared the fitness and considered that she i...

Sumant Kumar Tyagi S/O Late Shri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant, an ex-Clerk, has impugned respondents' order dated 17.8.1984, whereby in pursuance of disciplinary proceedings a major penalty of compulsory retirement has been inflicted upon him. Also assailed is an order passed on 10.1.2000, whereby the request of applicant for grant of retiral benefits has been turned down.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that applicant, who was initially appointed as a Lower Division Clerk on 27.5.1964, was granted quasi-permanency on 27.5.1968. Due to some indifferences and bias of one officer, namely, Shri Surinder Singh applicant was transferred to Madras, which he had responded to by annexing his certificate of illness as well as of his wife due to Tuberculosis of ovary. However, non-joining of applicant resulted in a memorandum dated 15.11.1980 issued to him under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, whereby he has been alleged to have infringed the provisions of Rule 3 of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1972 by remaining una...