Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court September 2007 Judgments

Shri A. Koteswara Rao S/O A. Appala Vs. Chief Engineer, DakshIn Kamand

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. This application is filed seeking declaration to the effect that the applicant is entitled to be considered for promotion/ absorption as LDC with effect from 3.3.1998 against the vacancies available under the recruitment rules issued vide SRO No. 233 dated 4.10.91 with all consequential benefits such as seniority, arrears of pay, etc., and to set aside the letter No. 14000/8/1105/EIR dated 20.4.2005 issued to the applicant on 7.7.2005. The applicant is a B.Com. Graduate and he passed type writing higher grade in English and also computer course. He was appointed as a Group D Mazdoor on 3.3.93 on regular basis on account of casual labour service rendered by him. He was posted in the office of Garrison Engineer, Panaji which comes under industrial establishment. According to the applicant, though he was posted as Mazdoor, in view of his qualifications and knowledge, he was asked to work in EIR Section on administrative side to attend to clerical nature of duties. Since then he has be...

Dharmender S/O Shri Virender Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. A general Notification had been published in Dainik Punjab Kesri, dated 06.03.1999 at the instance of the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, inviting response from qualified persons for appointment to the post of Fire Operator under the Delhi Fire Service.Minimum qualifications prescribed were pass in matriculation and possession of Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License. The applicant, evidently, had responded to the above and it is submitted that he had been directed to undergo a selection process consisting of written, physical, and practical tests. A select list of candidates appeared in Nav Bharat Times dated 13.10.2001 consisting of 149 persons. There were 35 numbers listed whose results had been withheld. Applicant finding that he was one of them, had taken further steps to get his applications rectified, and he stood cleared as there is no dispute that he was one of the persons, who had been notified as selected. A copy of the result notice is marked as Annexure A-4/a...

Krishan Kumar Rajput S/O Shri Vs. Shri Pradipto Ghosh, Secretary,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. This contempt petition arises from OA 2064/2005. The applicants were casual labourer engaged by the respondents and in the matter of their regularization of service, an application (OA 3097/2003) came to be filed. The same had been disposed of with certain observations. Later on, when there were definite steps on the part of the respondents for hiring of services of a Contractor evidenced by Annexure-A dated 12.7.2005, raising various contentions, OA 2064/2005 had come to be filed. Notice had been issued but on the date of posting in spite of receipt of notice, there was no appearance for respondents. Again, on 05.10.2005, taking notice of the above, the O.A. was adjourned to 21.11.2005 but the Tribunal was also inclined to pass an order to the following effect: Till then respondents are directed to re-engage the applicants as per Annexure-A.2. The applicants submit that they had gone to the respondents and requested for engagement, but highlighting the presence of the impugned ord...

Shri Dilleswar Rao S/O Late M. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

1. The point that arises for our consideration in this OA lies in a very short compass i.e., the validity of the decision/order dated 16.6.2004 to the effect that the applicant was over-aged as on 1.4.2004 and so he would not be eligible for appearing to the test to be conducted for filling up of vacancies of LDC by promotion from Group 'D' employees.2. Let us look at the brief facts of the case first. The applicant is an ex-serviceman discharged from the Indian Army on voluntary retirement on 1.1.1994 after about 16 years of service. The applicant was appointed as Watchman with effect from 20.10.1997 in the Canteen Stores Department, Visakhapatnam. In pursuance of the notification issued on 2.6.2004 for fillilng up 10% quota for promotion, the applicant applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk but his application was rejected vide order dated 16.6.2004 on the ground that he was not eligible for appearing for the test as he was over-aged as on 1.4.2004. He made representation on 2...

J. Edward Simon S/O Late Shri J. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Rep. by the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(a) To direct respondents to conduct the reviews provided for in the Office Order dt. 17.4.1975 read with the OM Dated 12.12.1975 of the ISRO Headquarters, Bangalore, commencing from the date of completion of 3 years of the initial appointment of the applicants in the organization and there after every 3/4/5 years till the date of their retirement, to grant promotional grades to them as per the recommendations of the review committee, to fix the pay in the respective promotional grades from time to time and pay to the applicants consequential arrears of pay and allowances and fixation of Pension accordingly and arrears of Pension by holding the action of the Respondents herein in not doing so and confining the benefit to only one upgradation contrary to the scope of Proceedings Dated 17.4.1975 and the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 17623 of 1998 Dated 2.7.2002 as bad, illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, irrational, illogical and unconstitutional; (b) To set aside the i...

Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Legal Heir Vs. the Superintendent Post Offices,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA, applicant challenges order dated 29.9.2006 that was passed in view of the direction given by the Tribunal in OA No. 1193 of 2006. He seeks direction to respondents to consider payment of gratuity with interest of his late father Shri Ganga Saran Sharma, Sub Post Master (Ex. SPM) w.e.f. 20.11.2001.2. Late Shri Ganga Saran Sharma was serving as Offg. SPM up to 24.9.1981 when he was placed under suspension. Applicant contends that his father was implicated in a false criminal case under Section 409/468 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5-1 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was held guilty by the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Dehradun vide its judgment dated 4.12.1984 whereby he was convicted and the following sentence was imposed: to undergo two years Regorous imprisonment and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1500/-. In default to payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of 4 months. The applicant was further convic...

All India Sc/St Telecom Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(2)SLJ155CAT

1. All India SC/ST Telecom Employees' Welfare Association of which the present aggrieved members are the officers of Department of Tele communications belonging to TES Group B have assailed seniority list dated 17.1.2007 of SC/ST Officers of TES Group B with a direction to implement the Eighty Fifth Constitution Amendment Act, 2001 with all consequential benefits.2. Factual matrix, which is relevant to be highlighted, transpires that some of the members of the association were promoted from 1993 to 1998 as TES Group B Officers (Sub Divisional Engineer) in the light of Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in Indra Sahney v. Union of India and Ors. . Article 16 of the Constitution of India was amended through Seventy Seventh Amendment Act, 1995. However, in Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan , in the matter of accelerated promotion, it has been decided that the general category candidates will regain their seniority on catch-up rule over reserved category candidates on their tu...

Smt. Rakesh Devi Widow of Shri Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi), the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

i) direct the respondents to consider and to grant the appointment to applicant on compassionate ground at an early date; ii) direct the respondents to consider the case of applicant for relaxing the rules irrespective of age and education qualification for her appointment for compassionate ground, if necessary.2. The brief facts are that applicant, a widow of late Group 'D' (Safaiwala) employee in Akashwani & Doordarshan, who died in harness on 26.03.2005. She submitted application in April 2006 for appointment on compassionate ground and consequential benefits as per rules from time to time immediately after the death of deceased employee. When husband of applicant died he left behind his widow and seven children with no other source of livelihood except his income.3. Shri Yogesh Sharma, learned Counsel for applicant submitted that the case of applicant was forwarded to Respondent No. 2 for consideration for granting of appointment on compassionate grounds in February 2006 and a...

B.M. Anand, Director, Inspection Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri B.M. Anand, Director, Inspection & Investigation, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calling in question order dated 24.5.2007 vide which he was placed under suspension, as also order dated 20.8.2007 vide which his suspension has been ordered to continue till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2007. Reading of order dated 24.5.2007 placing the applicant under suspension would show that a criminal case has been registered against the applicant by the CBI which is of possessing disproportionate assets commensurate to the known sources of income of the applicant. The applicant, it further appears, has been placed under suspension under provisions contained in rule 10(1)(b) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. Reading of order dated 20.8.2007 would show that the suspension of the applicant was reviewed by the revie...

C.L. Sesha Sastri S/O Vs. Union of India (Uoi), by Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT

1. This Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed against the inertia and inaction on the part of the respondents in not giving promotion in favour of applicant No. 1 to the post of Private Secretary `B' inspite of the fact that his name was empanelled. (a) The applicant No. 1 being appointed to the post of Stenographer in the office of the Director, LRDE under the Ministry of Defence, Government of India assumed charge of the said post on 2.12.1968. He was promoted to the post of Stenographer Grade-II on 9.11.1978. He was further promoted to the post of Senior Personal Assistant w.e.f. 22.7.1993 which post was later re-designated as Private Secretary "A". (b) The applicant No. 1 submits that the 1st respondent vide communication No. DOP/06/62096/PS`B'/05 dated 17.12.2004 to the 3rd respondent informed that the applicant's name was empanelled in the list of promotion to the post of Private Secretary `B' in the time-scale of pay of R...