Central Administrative Tribunal Cat Court June 2012 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.
A. Periyasamy Vs. Union of India Rep. by the Director of Postal Servic ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
R. SATAPATHY, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The above application is filed under Section of 19 of Administrative Tribunal’s Act 1985 seeking the following relief: “(i) To call for the records of the 2nd respondent pertaining to his order which is made in No.B2/Staff/AP/05 dated 25/29.11.2010 and set aside the same, consequent to; (ii) direct the respondents to grant MACP benefit to the applicant at part with his juniors.” 2. The brief facts are as follows: The applicant belongs to ST community. He got appointment in the respondents department against the quota reserved for ST community. Without properly conducing inquiry to find out the community status of the applicant, the respondents have removed the applicant from service from time to time. The applicant was reinstated into service from 28.11.2005 as per the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Madras made in W.P.No.20174 of 2005 dated 19.10.2005. The respondents are taking time to find out the community status of the a...
P.S. Srinivas Vs. Union of India Rep by the Secretary, Min. of Social ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
Hon'ble Mr. R. Satapathy, Administrative Member The OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by the applicant who has retired from service with effect from 30.4.2010 for the following relief: “to call for the recores relating to Inter Order No.F.No.8-9/2007-Nis dated 31.1.2011 of the 3rd respondent issued through his Deputy Secretary and quash the same; to order the 1st respondent to count the past service of the applicant and sanction pension and gratuity for the period from 5.5.1973 to 23.4.1986 by the 2nd respondent who are stated to be ready with their pro rata pension and gratuity pension on their part; from 24.4.1986 to 6.12.2006 by the 1st respondent; from 7.12.2006 to 30.4.2010 the last leg of service with the 3rd respondent.” 2. Mr. M. Munian, learned counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr. S. Muthusamy, learned counsel appeared for the respondents. 3. The applicant joined the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) on...
P. Subramanian and Others Vs. the Union of India Represented by the Ch ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
G. SHANTHAPPA, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, for a direction to the respondents to permit the applicants to appear for LGO examination for promotion to the cadre of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (PA/SA for short) to be held on 16.10.2011 (Sunday) and a further relief of direction to the respondents to appoint the applicants as PA/SA subject to come out successful in the said examination. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. In respect of the first relief, this Tribunal while hearing the case, at the time of admission on 14.10.2011, passed an interim order which reads as under: “We direct the respondents to permit the applicants to write the examination for promotion to the post of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant, to be held on 16.10.2011. The results, so far as the applicants are concerned, will be subject to the outcome of the O.A.” From a reading of the abov...
A. Rajkumar Vs. Union of India Rep by Its Senior, Dee/Op/Mas Southern ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-25-2012
G. Shanthappa, Member(J)) The above application is filed under section of 19 of Administrative Tribunal's Act 1985 challenging the legality and propriety of the charge memo no .M/ET/OP/150/1/DAR/AR/SF5/2 dated 27.01.2012 by the respondents and to quash the same. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. Senior Counsel Mr. V. Radhakrishnan represented the respondents. 3. The brief facts of the case according to the applicant are: The applicant was driving the train from Chennai Beach to Vellore i.e. MEMU 66017. When the train was running in a normal speed he had seen in the opposite side a train moving from Arakonam to Katpadi and he applied sudden break, the speed could not be controlled. The train dashed the opposite train and he was thrown out from the train and there was an accident. The police registered a case and FIR was filed in Cr. No. 623/2011 under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) of IPC r/w 154 Railway Act at 323, 324, 326 and 304 of IPC. The responde...
D. Sathiyan Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary to Govt. Min ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member The above application is filed under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the relief, to call for the records on the file of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in connection with the impugned office order No.17016/1/2010/IFS.I dated 27.02.2012 and No. 804/2012/CASFOS/E.1/AIS (3) dated 28.02.2012 and quash the same, further relief of direction to the respondents to transfer the applicant permanently to Kerala cadre. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. It is admitted from either side that the applicant belongs to 1996 batch of Indian Forest Service of Assam Meghalaya cadre (AM-96). His native State is Tamil Nadu. The applicant had submitted his representation dated 30.09.2004 for deputation under CSS of MOEF, in which he had informed the authorities that he was kidnapped by some militants in Mehgalaya and held in captivity w.e.f. 18.06.2004 to 01.07.2004, which was a highly traumatic experience both physically as w...
R. Manimaran Vs. the General Manager Southern Railway and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-22-2012
G. Shanthappa, Member (J) The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 challenging the legality and propriety of the order No. HPB(O)767/2011 dated 29.11.2011 issued by the 1st respondent and quash the same. 2. I have heard the learned counsel Shri R. Singaravelan appearing for the applicant and Shri R. Radhakrishnan, Senior Counsel for the Railways along with R. Krishnamurthy, Panel of advocates for the railways. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1, representing the second respondent. Though the notice served on the 3rd respondent but there is no representation, on 14.02.2012, he was placed Ex-Parte. 4. The brief facts of the case according to the applicant are : The applicant is working as Deputy Chief Mechanical Enginer, Carriage amd Wagon at Perambur in Chennai. One Shri J. Nagesh had filed OA 902/2010 against the Railways in which the present applicant was the 4th respondent in the said OA. 5. The said OA was disposed of on 15...
M. Rajagopal Vs. Union of India Rep. by the Director of Postal Service ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Decided on: Jun-21-2012
R. SATAPATHY, ADMINISRATIVE MEMBER 1. Heard both the counsels. This Tribunal while passing order in OA 1131/2010 in its order dated 14.06.2011 has observed as follows: “13. In view of the above, the O.A. is allowed. The impugned order dated 10.03.2010 and 18.08.2010 are hereby quashed/set aside. The respondents shall refund the amount if any recovered from the applicant. However liberty is given to the respondents to issue a fresh charge sheet under rule-14 to hold the enquiry giving full opportunity to the applicant to defend his case. If the liberty is availed of by the respondents, in that event they shall issue a charge sheet within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order and complete it within six months thereafter subject to the condition that the applicant shall cooperate in completion of proceedings. Delay if any, attributable to the applicant shall be discounted while calculating the period of six months.” 2. The learned counsel for the ...
K. Nazer and Others Vs. the Chairman and Managing Director, Bsnl Corpo ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. The above OA and the CP having common factual matrix and common legal issue, were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. All the applicants in O.A. No. 630/2011 have completed 24 years of service after 01.10.2004. They had entered in service as Junior Engineer under the Department of Telecommunication Services. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) was formed on 01.10.2000. The applicants were absorbed in the service of BSNL. The BSNL had notified its own Time bound/past based executive promotional policy on 18.01.2007. As a one time relaxation, the BSNL had decided to grant the financial benefits available to its executives under various existing Government financial upgradation schemes till 01.10.2004. Hence the benefit of ACP Scheme was available to the officers of the BSNL whenever they became eligible before 01.10.2004. The applicants are aggrieved by the order dated 19.05.2009 at Annexure A-4 rejecting their claim ...
Smt. B.K. Sajitha Vs. Union of India Represented by Administrator, U.T ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-20-2012
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member 1. The matter is simple and short. The applicant presently working as a Trained Graduate Teacher under the Respondents was, when functioning as Primary School Teacher, directed to work against a post of TGT, teaching higher classes and was also asked to work as PGT. The applicant having performed her assigned functions, was, however, paid with the salary meant for the Primary School Teacher and not that of the TGT or PGT as the case may be. The duration involved in the applicant's having performed the duties of a teacher at the high school level in three spells, is from 13-07-2003 to 07-08-2005 as TGT (two years plus), 08-08-2005 to 16-02-2007 and again from 27-06-2009 to 14-10-2010 as PGT (nearly three years). The claim preferred by the applicant for salary as applicable to TGT and PGT for the respective periods was rejected and hence, this application seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-12 and to ...
Cherry Ittoop Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manager, S ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Decided on: Jun-19-2012
Ms. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in providing him lien in Trivandrum Division even after 19 years of his appointment. 2. The applicant's father who was working as an Inspector of Works at Thrissur Railway Station in Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway passed away on 03.09.1991, while in service. The applicant being eligible for appointment on compassionate ground was subjected to the necessary written test. He was approved for appointment in a post in Group C Cadre. He was recommended for appointment in the post of Skilled Artisan with a pay scale of Rs.950-1500 in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction/Thrissur (Annexure A 1-5). The applicant was issued with an appointment order vide Annexure A-6 dated 12.06.1992 to post him as Works Mate in the office of Executive Engineer/Construction/Thrissur. According to the applicant, in the endorsement to Divisional Railway Manager/Personnel, Triva...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next ›
- Last »