Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 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.
Shri Anjani Kumar Sinha S/O Shayam Vs. the Chief Personnel Officer,
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
1. We have heard Shri K. Siva Reddy, learned Counsel for the applicants as also Shri M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the official respondents. The subject OA has been presented with the following prayer: (i) Impugned seniority list of Station Masters-II in Scale of Rs. 5500-9000 vide proceedings dated 12/14.12.2004 and rejection of the objections filed by the applicants in proceedings dated 23.5.2005 and set aside the same; (b) Alert notice issued by the 2nd respondent to give promotion to the respondents 3 to 27 to SM-I in the scale of Rs. 6500-10500 vide proceedings dated 24.12.2004 by setting aside the same; and (c) to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to place the applicants over and above the respondents 3 to 27 in the seniority list dated 12/14.12.2004 with all consequential benefits.2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this case, it is first necessary to have a look at the brief facts of the case. The applicants herein applied for appointment to the post of Tra...
Shri P.N. Ranganathan, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
1. We have heard Shri K. Nagaraj for Shri A. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the applicants as also Shri M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The short prayer made by the applicant in this OA is to set aside and quash the penalty of 50% cut in the monthly pension on permanent basis imposed by the 2nd respondent vide order dated 18.11.2003 as illegal, unconstitutional and direct the respondents to sanction full pension to the applicant.3. The brief facts here are that the applicant joined the Department of Customs and Central Excise in 1961 and got promotion in due course.Lastly, he was promoted to the cadre of Superintendent, Central Excise in 1988. He was posted as Superintendent, Central Excise in Hyderabad II Divisional Preventive Unit where he worked between 31.1.1994 and 8.9.1994. He was then shifted to Cherlapally III Range M.C.L. He retired from service on superannuation on 31.8.1996 after 36 years of service. However, he was given only provisional pension...
K. Srinivasa Rao Vs. the Chief Personnel Officer,
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
1. Heard Ms. Anuradha, Ld. Counsel representing Mr. G.V. Subba Rao, Ld.Counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, Ld. Counsel for the respondents.2. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed in the respondents organization as Junior Engineer-II on 09.06.1997 and presently working as Junior Engineer -I at South Central Railway, Secunderabad. It is submitted by the applicant that while working as such, he applied for the post of Signal Engineer in a Private Organization, Signaling Village India, for furthering his professional advancement. It is submitted by the applicant that in response to the applicant's personal bio-data, the MCML Systems (P) Ltd., Bangalore offered him a job as Signal Engineer based at Hyderabad vide their letter dated 04.05.2007 and the applicant was offered monthly salary of Rs. 40,000/-. It is submitted by the applicant that as the applicant had mentioned his personal status in the Railways, the MCML directed the applicant to produce salary and re...
Derrick Fernandez and ors. Vs. the Divisional Railway Manager
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
1. This application has been filed by the applicants questioning the order of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Guntakal, letter No.GP349/I/Divl. Offices, dated 15.6.04 rejecting the claim of the applicants for payment of Over Time Allowances and The Chief Personnel Officer, Secunderabad, letter No. P.LE/347/Rosters/Field Officers dated 7.4/6.04 regarding non payment of over time as per Tribunal's judgment in OA 769/02 dated 7.10.03.2. The applicants are working in the Diesel Loco Shed under the control of the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, DSL, Guntakal. It is the case of the applicants that they are rostered to work for 40 hours in a week as per the instructions of the Chief Personnel Officer as notified under the duty roster issued by the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Guntakal on 18.11.1998. It is the contention of the applicants that consequent on the introduction of 5 day week by the Central Government in the administrative offices the Ministerial staff are ...
M.A.K. Jileni Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by Its the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-29-2007
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. This application is filed seeking the relief of reinstatement of the applicant into service from the date of removal with all back wages protecting the seniority, promotion in higher scales on par with his juniors, treating the entire period of deemed suspension as on duty from 25.01.1998 as on date with full wages and also for consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances to the entire period of suspension till today and to impose heavy costs on the respondents. The applicant was working in railways. While he was in service disciplinary proceedings were initiated alleging unauthorized absence of 438 days in 2 spells. After due inquiry the inquiry officer found him guilty of unauthorized absence and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority after giving opportunity to the applicant accepted the report of the inquiry officer and imposed puni...
Hanumanthappa Deokaran S/O Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Rep. by Its
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-28-2007
1. Heard learned Counsel Mr. J.M. Naidu for the Applicant and the learned Standing Counsel Mr. N.R. Devaraj for the Respondents.2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the action of the 3rd respondent in denying retirement benefits of Rs. 52,058/- towards DCRG, Commutation of Pension, Group Insurance, Leave Salary and not releasing the pension as per Vth Pay Commission Rules, vide proceedings No. PA/DE/PF/HD, dated 16.10.2002, basing on the first respondent's Board letter No. E(G)97-RT1-1, dated 7.7.1999, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and for consequential direction to the respondents to release all the monetary benefits like DCRG, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment including the Vth Pay Commission benefits, and pass such other or further orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. The applicant's real date of birth is 15.2.1934. He was appointed as Khalasi on 2.2.1962. T...
T. Venkateswara Rao Vs. the Chief Postmaster General, the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
1. Heard Mr. S. Ramakrishna Rao, learned Counsel for the applicant and Mr. I. Koti Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. It is the case of the applicant that he had passed 10th class examination (SSC) in 1991 and is eligible to be considered for any Extra-departmental post and, therefore, he had applied for the ED post and was selected and appointed as ED Agent w.e.f. 17.7.1984 and was working continuously as Mail Packer in Gudivada RS. The applicant has obtained Heavy Motor Vehicles Driving Licence (including light vehicles like Jeep/Car, etc.) vide Licence No. AP16/NI/226/G/I/1989 which was renewed from time to time and is presently valid upto 14.7.2016. He has also gained experience in driving both heavy and light vehicles. He has intimated the respondents accordingly about his possessing licence in driving both heavy and light vehicles.3. The Divisional Office of Gudivada is having one inspection vehicle (Jeep) which was driven by a regular driver and the said pos...
Shri M. Tulsi Ram Naik S/O M. Chand Vs. the Supdt. of Post Offices, th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
1. This is an application filed challenging non-consideration of the applicant for selection for the post of GDS MC at Ambavaram Branch Office and for declaration that the selection of the third respondent as illegal and arbitrary and to set aside the proceedings No. 136/GDS dated 27.6.2005. The applicant, Shri M. Tulsi Ram Naik belongs to S.T. Category. The second respondent, Sub-Divisional Inspector (Postal), Giddalur Sub-Division, issued a notification vide Memo No. PP/GDS MC/Ambavaram dated 14.5.2005 inviting applications from ST candidates for the post of GDS MC at Ambavaram Branch Office. In response to that notification, the applicant applied for the said post by sending an application along with required documents through an ordinary post. In the notification itself it is mentioned that the interview will be held on 20.6.2005 at the office of SDI (P), Giddalur at 10.00 am and all those who applied for the post should appear for the interview along with original documents. The ...
D. Swamy Vs. Divisional Railway Manager (P),
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-27-2007
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.2. The grievance of the applicant is that his juniors have been shown as seniors in the seniority list of Khalasis. Therefore, he filed this application seeking the following relief: to call for the records pertaining to this OA declaring the action of the 1st respondent in not considering the representation of the applicant dated 30.01.2003 for rectification of seniority discrepancy as illegal, arbitrary, violation of principles of natural justice, and also violation of Articles 14, 15, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the letter No. CP/676/IV/S&T/Kh.Helper, dt. 16.7.2003 of the 1st respondent directing the respondents to rectify the seniority discrepancy of the applicant and give seniority effecting from 1.1.1983/1984. As per the averments of the application, the applicant was appointed as casual labour with effect from 03.07.1978 and worked under DSTE/C...
G. Bhuvan Mohanjith Vs. the Accountant General (a and E)
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided on: Jun-26-2007
1. Heard Mr. Ramesh, learned Counsel representing the counsel for the applicant and Ms. N. Shakthi, learned standing counsel for the respondent.2. It is the case of the applicant that his father late Sri G. Naganna, while working as Supervisor, expired on 10.3.2000. The brother and mother of the applicant made representation for providing compassionate appointment on 13.4.2004 but no action was taken by the respondent on their representation. Two years thereafter the applicant who is the second son of the deceased employee, submitted a representation which was received by the respondent on 10.4.2006. The respondent vide letter dated 24.4.2006 rejected the claim of the applicant which is annexed at page 20 of the OA. Questioning the said order, the applicant has approached this Tribunal for a direction to the respondent to provide employment to the applicant in any suitable post under the scheme of compassionate appointment by declaring the decision of the respondent in rejecting the c...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- Next ›
- Last »