Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court August 2007 Judgments

Shamsher Singh S/O Shri Phool Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, presently Assistant Commercial Manager (ACM), Northern Railway has assailed the impugned order dated 16.8.2005, a response to his numerous representations, objecting to exclusion from consideration for promotion in selection processes for Limited Departmental Examination (LDE) held in 1992 and 1995 and also for non observance of the sealed cover procedure.2. Briefly, facts of the case are that applicant, an ST candidate, was appointed on 19.5.1977 as Coaching Clerk in Northern Railway in Group 'C'. Till 1984, he continued upwards in the hierarchy of Group 'C' to the level of Chief Booking Supervisor. His grievance starts from 1992, when a selection to Group 'B' was initiated on 29.7.1992. He gave written examination but he was not called for viva voce for reasons unknown. In the second selection held on 23.4.1995 he was not called to sit for the examination. However, one Shri C.L. Meena, junior to applicant, was allowed to sit in this second examination. Later, it wa...

Mrs. Manju Singh W/O Maj. Gen. R. Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Ch ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Mrs. Manju Singh, who started her career as a TGT (Home Science) in Government Girls Senior Secondary School, Kalyanpuri on 19.4.1984, clamors for grant of senior scale admissible to a teacher after putting in 12 years of service. The applicant, for denial of the desired relief squarely blames the respondents for dealing her case in a careless, indifferent, irresponsible and callous manner.2. The undisputed facts reveal that the applicant was appointed as TGT (Home Science) on 19.4.1984. Having put in service of 12 years she became entitled to senior scale of Rs. 6500-200-10500 w.e.f. 19.4.1996.She joined Sarvodaya Kanya Vidyalaya, Malviya Nagar on 21.8.2001. The DPC for grant of senior scale to the applicant and others was held on 29.1.2004 wherein the applicant was recommended for grant of senior scale which would be effective from 19.4.1996. Having not received her due despite her eligibility and recommendation made by the DPC, she addressed a letter to the Education Officer on ...

Dr. Lal Chand Thakur S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant, while seeking quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders dated 27.01.2003 (Annexure A-1) and 03.09.2004 (Annexure A-2) to the extent they grant him promotion on notional basis, has sought a direction to the respondents to pay him arrears of pay and allowances, on actual basis, for the post of Professor Neurology w.e.f. 07.12.1989 to 26.04.1994 and, similarly, arrears of pay and allowances for the post of Director Professor from 26.04.1999 to 03.09.2004, with all consequential benefits.2. The undisputed facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Associate Professor w.e.f. 20.11.84 as direct recruit. One vacancy of Professor of Neurology of the year 1985 was converted from Direct Recruitment Quota to Promotion quota, as no suitable candidates were found by the UPSC, in spite of two attempts. A DPC meeting was held on 30.06.1989, in which the applicant and Dr. (Mrs.) Meena Gupta were considered. The DPC recommended Dr. Meena Gupta for pr...

Shri A.P. Sastry S/O Late Sri A. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Represented

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. Heard Shri M. Venkanna representing Dr. A. Raghu Kumar, learned Counsel for the applicant and Shri C. Yadagiri, learned standing Counsel for the respondents.2. The present OA has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash the charge memo dated 25.9.96 for the reason that the said memo has been issued on the same charge as the earlier charge memo dated 29.5.1991 which has not reached its logical end, inasmuch as, the revisionary authority, who was directed by the Hon'ble Tribunal in OA 255/99 by Order dated 14.3.2000 to take a final decision in the light of the observations by the Hon'ble Tribunal, but has remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority i.e., the 4th respondent herein vide order dated 31.7.2000. The additional ground adduced is that the impugned charge memo has been issued after a lapse of six years which is not attributable to the applicant.3. The brief facts of the case here are that the applicant originally joined the office of the Director of Po...

Dr. Sulekha Chakraborty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ324CAT

1. Through this O.A., following reliefs have been prayed for by the applicant: (a) A direction to the respondent No. 5 to forthwith send the recommendation of the name of the applicant to respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as eligible non SCS Officer of State Government Assam having outstanding merit and ability and age for selection to IAS for the year 2006. (b) A direction to the Respondent to forthwith convene the Selection Committee Meeting, make a selection and prepare the select list for appointment by selection to the 2(two) vacancies so determined by the Central Government for the year 2006 in the Indian Administrative Service, Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre from non-State Civil Service, Assam. (c) A direction to the respondents not to club together the 2(two) vacancies of Indian Administrative Service, Assam-Meghalaya Joint that arose for calender year 2006 with any vacancy that may arise for the calender year 2007 and in near future and consider the said 2 (two) posts separately for the y...

Dr. Nishant Singh, Sub Inspector Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant, a Sub Inspector in the National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, is aggrieved by act of respondents in not issuing an experience certificate vide orders dated 23.1.2007 and 6.3.2007 to enable him to participate in selection of the post of Assistant Director (scale Rs. 8550-14400) advertised by the Public Service Commission, Lucknow.2. The case of the applicant is that as he belongs to SC category and highly qualified, with degrees of M.Sc., M. Phil and Ph.D. He contends that he must be allowed to further his career as he decides. A refusal by respondents for issuance of an experience certificate to enable him to apply for a PSC advertised post is an arbitrary decision. The applicant has claimed that he has approached the Tribunal after exhausting all available remedies. He had made several representations to the Director as well as to the Joint Secretary (CS), but to no avail.3. Further, the plea of respondents that many employees of NCRB ar...

Karam Vir Singh S/O Shri Randhir Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of Memo dated 01.12.2006 (Annexure A-1) and the supporting Note dated 20/28.11.2006 (Annexure A-1-a) whereby the request of the applicant for fixation of his pay on notional basis at par with his junior has been rejected.2. This is the second round of litigation. The brief facts of the case are that, in 1997, the respondents had invited applications for filling up of the posts of Trained Graduate Teachers (TGT, for short) and Language Teachers. One of the eligibility conditions prescribed was that the candidate for the post of TGT should have a Bachelor's Degree (Hons./Pass) or equivalent from a recognized University in two subjects, of which at least one, out of English, Maths, Natural/Physical Science and Social Science, should have been an elective subject. The applicant was a Graduate of Osmania University, Hyderabad as an external candidate. The respondents did not consider the applicant eligible for the post of TG...

Sh. K.S. Murali S/O Late Shri Vs. Government of India Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, the applicants have sought quashing and setting aside of orders through which recovery of Ration Money arrears paid to them has been ordered by the respondents, with consequential benefits.2. The bare facts of the case are that by Order dated 30.01.2001, the respondents issued sanction for extension of Ration Money Allowance to the non-executive personnel, including ministerial personnels of Special Service Bureau [since re-named as Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short)], Aviation Research Centre (Directorate General of Security), posted at 'B' & 'C' stations. The said Order further stated that Ration Money Allowance will be admissible only prospectively, based on review undertaken for the purpose. This order was circulated through Memo dated 08.02.2001 (Annexure-2 Colly.). The applicants were paid Ration Money for different periods predating the issue of Order dated 30.01.2001. Sometime in the year of 2005 or thereabouts, the respondents took a decision that the paym...

Sat Pal Singh S/O Late Shri Sohan Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Throu ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2006 (Annexure A) whereby the applicant was dismissed from service while dispensing with departmental enquiry in terms of Sub-clause (b), of second proviso to Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India [Article 311 (2)(b), for short]. The applicant has also sought quashing and setting aside of the order of the Appellate Authority dated 30.10.2006 (Annexure-B) whereby his appeal was rejected. The applicant has also sought direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service, with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case, as narrated in the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2006, are as follows: On 26.7.2006, Shri Ravindra Nath Sharma S/o Shri S.N. Sharma R/o House No. RZF-33/A, Gali No. 33, Pradhan Chowk, Palam Gaon, New Delhi made a written complaint in Anti-Corruption Branch/CBI that in the year 2004, a case u...

G.K. JaIn S/O Shri Jineshwar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur

1. The applicants have challenged the seniority list issued by the West Central Railway, Jabalpur on 30th December, 2004. The representations made by the applicants against the said seniority list was turned down by the respondents.2. The case of the applicants is that they were appointed as Junior Cashier from where they were promoted to the post of Senior Cashier on different dates in between the period from 18th September, 1990 to 29th September, 1996. All of them were promoted on different dates on ad-hoc basis as Senior Cashier and thereafter they were regularized w.e.f.11th August, 1997. It is further stated that promotion to the post of Senior Cashier were made in the Western Railway on ad-hoc basis in accordance with the rules and as per the seniority subject to passing of the suitability test. However, the suitability tests were not held for years together and the incumbents continued to work on ad-hoc basis until their regularization on passing of the suitability test.It is ...