Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Syed Rafat Alam, J. 1. This Review Application is preferred by the respondents to the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as respondent-applicants) seeking review/recall of order of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2011 in OA No.3065/2011.2. We have heard Sh. R. N. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-applicants and Sh. Lalta Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant of the OA (hereinafter referred to as applicant-respondent). 3. It appears that the applicant-respondent has invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 by moving OA No.3065/2011 seeking the following reliefs: 8. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in above paras, it is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Honble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to pass an order:- a). Direct the respondents to grant the age relaxation and consider for the post of Driver to the applicant on the basis of Naresh Bagris case. b). Pass a suc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The applicant is before us challenging the order dated 19.03.2013, whereby the respondents have rejected her request for voluntary retirement on the ground that she has not completed the age of 50 years as stipulated in FR 56 (k) and that she has not completed 20 years of qualifying service, which is the requirement as per Rule-48 A of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Her grouse is that the stand now taken by the respondents is contrary to the earlier letter dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure A-3) by which the similar request of the applicant had earlier been rejected, stating that she had not completed 10 years of minimum qualifying service for grant of voluntary retirement. The applicant has assailed the stand of the respondents to be contrary to the Honble Delhi High Courts judgment in Delhi Development Authority vs. Shri Kundan and Ors. in WP (C) No.4311/2003, judgment dated 05.04.2010, a copy of which she has annexed as Annexure A-6. She has submitted that in this ju...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, an Assistant Director General, Ministry of Tourism, was placed under suspension vide Order dated 21.11.2012, with immediate effect, on the ground that a disciplinary proceedings is contemplated/pending against him. The Suspension Review Committee of the respondents reviewed the suspension of the applicant on 08.02.2013 and extended the period of suspension of the applicant for a further period of three months with effect from 21.02.2013, vide Order dated 20.02.2013. Again the respondents vide Order dated 06.06.2013 extended the period of suspension of the applicant for a further period of three months w.e.f. 21.05.2013. Thereafter, the respondents extended the period of suspension of the applicant from time to time and accordingly, he is being continued under suspension as on today. 2. The applicant filed the present OA questioning his suspension and extension of suspension orders on the ground that the same are violative of Rule 10(6) and (...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The petitioner of this Contempt Petition has alleged act of gross disobedience and deliberate flouting of the interim order passed in his OA on 10.03.2014, and has prayed for initiation of proceedings for civil contempt against the respondents/alleged contemnors. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, orders were reserved at the admission stage itself. 2. The petitioner is a responsible civil servant in the grade of Superintending Engineer with Military Engineering Service, and had been issued orders of his transfer to Kapurthala on 03.01.2014, which is Annexure A-1 in his OA. He represented against such transfer and his representation was rejected on 26.02.2014, after which he filed the said OA on 04.03.2014. The Bench which heard the OA had passed the following interim orders on 10.03.2014 at the admission stage itself:- It is brought to our notice that the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant in this regard by way o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, an UDC and working in Tihar Jail, was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 10.01.2009, vide Order dated 21.01.2009, as he was detained in custody on 10.01.2009 at 6 P.M. and released on bail on 15.01.2009 at 7.00 PM i.e., for a period of exceeding 48 hours, in connection with FIR No.486/2007 dated 13.09.2007 registered under sections 420/467/468/471/120-B/204 IPC with P.S., Kashmiri Gate, Delhi. His suspension was reviewed on 02.04.2009 and extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 02.04.2009, vide Order dated 09.04.2009. Again the suspension of the applicant was reviewed on 24.06.2009 and extended for another period of 90 days w.e.f. 24.06.2009, vide order dated 30.06.2009. Further, the suspension of the applicant was once again reviewed on 11.09.2009 and was extended for a further period of 90 days w.e.f. 21.09.2009. 2. The respondents after the Suspension Review Committee reviewed the suspension of the applicant, extended the suspe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, filed the present OA questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A1) and the Summary of Allegations dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A2). 2. The charge leveled against the applicant reads as under: It is alleged against Ct. Satish Chand, No.6234/DAP(PIS No.28892790) that on 19.06.2013, he along with Ct. Parmanand, No.1659/DAP was deployed on patrolling duty outside PHQ on the pavement from main gate to exit gate (X-17) and they were provided with WT sets. On that day, Inspector Ramesh Chander as routine, checked the staff detailed on duty at the various points of PHQ Guard and when at about 4 PM the Inspector noticed a motor-cycle was unauthorizedly parked at the pavement, he made search for the deployed staff who were found from their duty point. He called both the Constables through HC Kanwar Singh on W.T. sets and they were found coming from Exit Gate of PHQ. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed seeking for a review of the order pronounced on 30.01.2014 in TA No. 1086/2009. The operative portion of the order in TA was as follows:- "22. It is, therefore, clear and apparent that the applicant does not have any substantive grievance which requires a judicial intervention or determination from this Tribunal, and actually his grievances could have been settled if the issue concerning his seniority, in respect of which he had given numerous representations, had been settled, after which he would have perhaps automatically become eligible for being counted among the 30% segment of NFSG on the basis of his seniority. Therefore, this TA is disposed of, with liberty being granted to the applicant to consolidate his grievance as raised by him with the respondents through his representations dated 07.02.2005, 31.03.2005, 15.04.2005, 30.06.2005, 06.08.2005 and 09.12.2005 into a single representation, and the Respondent Nor...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral), Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman, J. 1. At the outset, a preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents about the maintainability of this Application before the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant belongs to the combatized service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and is working as Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) and thus, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the applicant pertaining to his service conditions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. We have heard learned counsel for applicant and respondents and considered the objections raised on behalf of the respondents regarding maintainability of this Application before the Tribunal. This issue has already been dealt with by this very Bench in OA No.2055/2012 with connected OA No.3322/2012 vide order dated 13.09.2013, wherein we have held as under:- "32. No doubt that the post of DIG is a Combatized (GD) post, but the fact remains that this issue has to be consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J). In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: (i). That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 18.10.2011 declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and based on wrong facts and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to reconsider and to grant the compassionate allowance to the applicant as per rule-65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 or previous pension rules from the date of removal from service with all consequential benefits including the arrears of back period pension. (ii).That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondent to release the GPF amount to the applicant with interest. (iii).Any other relief which the Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicant along with the cost of litigation. 2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: The appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed by the applicants of OA-657/2012 for review of our order dated 10.01.2013. This review application has been filed mainly on two grounds each of which is discussed as hereunder:- The first ground taken by the review applicants is that while passing the aforesaid order this Tribunal had lost sight of the manner in which pay fixation was done in the Ministry of Agriculture, which was specifically relied upon by the review applicants. We notice from our judgment that there is no mention of the pay fixation done in the Ministry of Agriculture. It, therefore, appears that there is force in the contention of the review applicants that this issue had escaped our attention while delivering the aforesaid judgment. The second ground taken by the review applicants is that this Tribunal had agreed that anomaly existed in pay fixation of teachers inasmuch as the teachers appointed on or after 01.01.2006 were getting more pay then...
Tag this Judgment!