Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 2011 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.
Baby Padmanabhan Vs. Union of India, Represented by Its Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicant in this O.A joined service as a Radio Technician in the Telecommunication Wing of the Central Excise and Customs Department at Ahmedabad on 05.04.1976. He was transferred to Kochi in 1981. He retired as Radio Technician on 31.05.2008 at Kochi. During 32 years of service, he did not get any promotion. But he was granted two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme. The promotion of Radio Technician is to the post of Technical Assistant and then Senior Technical Assistant. The post of Senior Technical Assistant was merged with the post of Technical Assistant as per Annexure A-2(a) order dated 18.02.2009 with retrospective effect from 01.01.1996 making available two posts of Technical Assistants. The applicant submitted a representation for promotion as Technical Assistant with effect from a date prior to his retirement in June, 2009, which was followed by another representation dated 17.09.2009. He was not favoured w...
P. Kailasam Vs. the Union of India, Represented by the Secretary to Go ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-30-2011
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member - 1. The prayers made in the Original Application are as follows:- "(i) To quash Annexure A1, (ii) To declare that the applicant is entitled to be considered for absorption in BSNL as a Group-A/Class-I officer in the light of the fact he was given deemed notional promotion as Executive Engineer in Group-A/Class I with effect from 1.10.1997, (iii) To direct the respondents to consider application for option for Group-A/Class-I submitted by the applicant and to absorb him in Group-A/Class-I with all consequential benefits, (iv) Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant, and (v) Grant the cost of this Original Application." 2. In the reply statement filed by respondent No. 1 they have produced an order dated 18.11.2009 and marked as Annexure R-1 based on which it is contended that the OA has become infructuous. As per order dated 18.11.2009 (R-1) approval of the competent authority is conveyed fo...
Albith P. Vs. Superintendent of Post Offices, Vadakara Division and Ot ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. During the relevant time, when the applicant filed this Original Application, he was working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster. Pursuant to the notification dated 11.08.2009 issued by the official respondents for the Departmental Examination for Recruitment to the cadre of Postman/Mail Guard for filling up the vacancies for the year 2006, the applicant also responded. The examination was held on 13.09.2009 and applicant wrote the examination. Results were published, but he was not selected. Based on the information furnished to him under the Right to Information Act, he came to know that the party respondents herein arrayed as respondent No. 5 to 7 have been selected against the vacancies for the year 2006, whereas according to the applicant, the non-selection of the applicant was due to the erroneous evaluation of his paper in comparison to that of the 7th respondent and others. 2. According to him, some of the questions answered ...
M. Sivadasan Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manager, Ka ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
HON'BLE Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicants who are retrenched Casual Labourers of South Western Railway, Mysore Division challenge their non-absorption in Group-D cadre in preference to their juniors. 2 According to the applicants, they have 1060 days each of casual service to their credit. They earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA 636/98 which was disposed of by order dated 31.1.2000 directing the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Bangalore, to adjudicate the issue and to pass necessary orders. The Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Bangalore in its findings dated 16.8.2004 found that the applicants are casual labourers and they are entitled to be absorbed (Annx.A2). Having denied re-engagement/absorption according to their turn, they had approached the Tribunal through O.A. 805/2007, which was allowed by A-3 order. Since Annx.A3 was not implemented, the applicants filed Contempt Petition No.51/2009 which was closed by order dated 1.12.2009 i...
i. Sudharatnam Vs. Union of India Represented by the Chief Passport Of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. As the legal issues involved in both these OAs are identical, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2 The applicants are aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to relieve them from Malappuram Passport Office to join Kozhikode Passport Office inspite of the transfer order dated 12.06.2009. By filing these O.As, they pray for a direction to the respondents to relieve them from Malappuram Passport Office to join Kozhikode Passport Office. O.A 399 of 2011 3 That the applicant is presently working as Passport Granting Officer at Passport Office, Malappuram. She was deputed there on temporary duty in the year 2006 from Kozhikode office and was transferred there subsequently. She joined there on 14.10.2006. She has completed more than 4 years at Malappuram. As per the transfer policy dated 09.02.2010, two years is the tenure at a station. As per order dated 12.06.2009, she stands transferred back to Ko...
K.V. Maiju and Others Vs. the Flag Officer, Kochi and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-29-2011
HON'BLE Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER1. The applicants who are working as Unskilled Labourers, challenge Annx.A4 and Annx.A5 in so far as it proposes to fill up the posts of Semi Skilled Laborers (SSL for brevity) in Ammunition Repair and in Gun Repair by direct recruitment of SSL in preference to the applicants who can be promoted/absorbed in these posts in accordance with the recommendation of the VI Central Pay Commission.2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are that they are recruited as Unskilled Labourers (USLs for short) of the Armament Depot in Southern Naval Command. The applicants except V.R.Ragini (applicant No.20) and R.Santhosh Kumar (applicant No.15) were appointed on 28.6.2007, V.R.Ragini on 23.8.96 and R.Santhosh Kumar on 6.2.2006. They were appointed against the sanctioned strength of USLs. Generally the unskilled laborers are promoted/ absorbed as semi-skilled labours on qualifying the departmental trade test conducted by the respondents. ...
Abdul Razak Pm. and Others Vs. the Administrator, Union Territory of L ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-28-2011
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. As common legal issue is involved in these three Original Applications, this common order is passed. 2. The facts of these cases are that for appointment on regular basis, Employment Notice dated 21.2.2011 (Annexure A-1) was issued and a number of aspirants had applied for the same. Vide Annexure A-2 Employment Notice dated 21.4.2011 for appointment on contractual basis applications were invited and sufficient responses had been received in respect of this Employment Notice as well. Insofar as appointment on regular basis is concerned, selection has taken place on 8.5.2011. The procedure adopted for this selection is as under:- "8. On 8th May, 2011 a Teacher Eligibility Test was conducted by the Calicut University for these candidates and the answer sheet in the OMR form was valued by the Lal Bahudur Shastri Institute of Science and Technology, Trivandrum. A committee consisting of two IAS officers and five DANICS officers was constituted as t...
Sheela Varghese Vs. Union of India Represented by Secretary, Governmen ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant in this Original Application has prayed for the following reliefs :- 1. Quash Annexure A-3 Recruitment Rule to the extent it fixes an upper age limit of 28 years for considering the GDS to the unfilled promotional quota vacancies in the cadre of Postal Assistants and Sorting Assistants. 2. Quash Annexure A-4 notification to the extent it fixes an upper age limit of 28 years as on 26.10.2009 for considering the GDS to the unfilled promotional quota vacancies of the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 in the cadre of Postal Assistants/Sorting Assistants. 3. Declare that Annexure A-10 order rejecting the application/representation of the applicant is arbitrary and illegal. 4. Declare that the applicant is eligible for participating in the selection for filling up the unfilled promotional quota vacancies notified in Annexure A-4. 5. Direct the respondents to allow the applicant to participate in the selection for filling up the vacancies of Post...
V. Sreekumar Vs. the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Governm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-27-2011
HON'BLE DrK.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The cause of action in this case arises from one and the same incident which has been dealt with in O.A.No.873/2009, 437/2010, 440/2010 and 441/2010. These O.As have already been decided vide order dated 30.3.2011. In fact according to the counsel for the parties, this O.A could have been dealt with along with the aforesaid O.As but had been omitted to be so decided. 2. Counsel for the applicant submits that in view of the identity of facts and law points involved in this case as well as in the other decided cases, an order in the same fashion as in the aforesaid O.As would meet the ends of justice. Counsel for respondents has no objection for such an order being passed. 3. In the aforesaid O.As, the Tribunal has dealt with the legal issue as well as the factual positions as hereunder: 2. The primary facts are as follows: It appears that the Accountant General of Kerala was visiting Thrissur Branch Office on official work on 30...
C. Chacko Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manager, Chenn ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-24-2011
HON'BLE Mrs.K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The relief sought by the applicant in this O.A is to grant him gratuity with interest for the period from 27.10.1972 to 9.7.1981 under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 in terms of Annexure A-6 Railway Board Establishment Circular No.130/2000 No.E(LL)86/AT/GRA/1-2 dated 30.6.2000. 2 The applicant retired from the Railway service as Gatekeeper on superannuation on 30.6.2009. According to the applicant, he had rendered casual service for the period from 27.10.1972 to 9.7.1981 under the Executive Engineer(Construction) Nagercoil. Thereafter, his services was regularised with effect from 10.7.1981. In support of his claim he has produced Annexure A-4 office order dated 25.12.1980 issued by the Divisional Office, Personnel Branch, Trivandrum showing "the empanelment of casual labourers of Construction organisation for absorption as Gangman". By the said letter 216 casual labourers/substitutes working under the territorial jurisdiction including...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
- Last »