Delhi Court October 2006 Judgments

Mohit Gupta and ors. Vs. State Govt. of Nct of Delhi and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 135(2006)DLT390; I(2007)DMC47; 2009(93)DRJ606

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.1. This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8.2.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby he thought it fit that additional charges be framed for the offences under Section 498-A/313/342 IPC against all the accused (except Vivek Gupta) in addition to the charge framed under Section 417 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his father and under Section 406 against Mohit Gupta and his mother. Being aggrieved by the additional charges framed against them, the accused have filed this revision petition. The order dated 8.2.2005, in turn, arose out of a revision petition filed by the complainant (Shalini) who was aggrieved by the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dated 26.3.2004 by virtue of which, charges only under Section 417 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his father and under Section 406 IPC against Mohit Gupta and his mother, were framed. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not frame any charge under Section 498-A IP...

Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, a Society Duly Registered Under the ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ185; (2007)ILLJ240Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of award dated 26.4.2003 passed by Labour Court-IV, Karkardooma, New Delhi.2. Briefly, the facts are that Respondent No. 3 Mr. Roshal Lal Bhatia was working as an electrician with the petitioner since 11.4.1975 on temporary basis. He was posted to look after the Sound & Light show which was one of the attractions of Nehru Museum. He was found negligent and careless in his duties as an electrician and he also entered into a scuffle with security guards and security officer on 22.6.1983 because of which the show had to be cancelled on that day. Following articles of charges were framed against him:Article IShri Roshal Lal, while functioning as electrician, did not carry out periodical checks of the electrical installations of the Sound & Light spectacle as per written and oral instructions given to him from time to time. As a result of his carelessness and negligence all the light effects of the ...

Harcharan Dass Gupta Vs. Delhi Development Authority and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2007Delhi75; 2009(93)DRJ822

Mukundakam Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 4th July, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge in is No.8460/2004, filed by the appellant herein under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC and is No.1586/2005, filed by respondent No.1 herein under Order XXXIX Rule 4 CPC, arising out of CS(OS) No.1435/2004. The appellant herein filed a Suit against the Delhi Development Authority, respondent No.1 herein, and the Oriental Bank of Commerce, respondent No.2 herein, seeking for a decree of declaration that the contract awarded by respondent No.1 herein in favor of the appellant under letter dated 7th August, 2003 is null and void and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Delhi Development Authority from invoking and encashing the bank guarantees as mentioned in the plaint and also for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the Oriental Bank of Commerce from releasing any amount payable under the subject bank guarantees.2. In order to appreciate the...

Shri Suraj Bhan Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ180

Vipin Sanghi, J.1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 4th December, 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in O. A. No. 1792/1992 whereby the original application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police on 2nd December, 1963 on temporary basis. Upon completion of three years of service in December, 1966 his case came up for consideration to treat him as quasi permanent. However, on account of the petitioner having been given a 'censure' on 18th September, 1966, his case was deferred for reconsideration to 3rd June, 1967.3. It appears that in the intervening period, in April 1967, there was a general strike in Delhi Police and the petitioner was amongst a large number of policemen arrested during the strike. While the petitioner was in Central Jail, Tihar, he along with others, was served with a notice of term...

Sahib Singh Vs. the Lt. Governor of Delhi and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 137(2007)DLT111; 2006(92)DRJ29

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition seeks the quashing of (a) an order dated 20.4.2000 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Respondent No. 3, under Section 21(2) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 ('Consolidation Act') and (b) and order dated 23.5.2000 passed by the Financial Commissioner, Respondent No. 2, dismissing the petitioner's revision petition against the order of Respondent No. 3. It seeks a mandamus to Respondent No. 3 to allot, further to a scheme of consolidation, the properties in question in equal halves to the petitioner and Respondent No. 4Background Facts2. The facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are that land admeasuring 58 bighas and 19 bids was in village Khanjhawala, North-West District, Delhi was recorded in the joint names of Shri Moji Ram, the father of the petitioner and Shri Amar Singh, brother of Shri Moji Ram, uncle of the petitioner, Respondent No. 1 herein, in equal shares. Pursuant to an...

Shri A.K. Malhotra S/O Late Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) Direct the respondents to grant 2nd ACP to the applicant in terms of the OM dt. 9/8/99 as he has completed more than 24 years of service. Direct the respondents to amend the rules and not to make promotions in violation of the same. Award costs and Pass any other order/directions as may be deemed just & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that Government of India issued a notification in 1984 revising the pay scales of Draftsmen in all Government of India offices on the basis of an Award given by the Board of Arbitration in C.P.W.D., where three grade structure has been evolved, whereas in Navy a four-tier structure of Tracer, Draftsman, Senior Draftsman and Head Draftsman exists. When the aforesaid C.P.W.D.Award was not adopted and implemented by Navy, it led to filing of OA-400/1991 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal, seeking extension of the orders issued by the Government in 1984, which was negated on 23.10.1992.3....

Shri Rishi Pal Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through (t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicant, a Cabinman, has assailed an order passed by the respondents on 23.12.2004 whereby in pursuance of a disciplinary proceeding, a major penalty of compulsorily retirement has been inflicted upon him. Also assailed an appellate authority's order dated 7.3.2005 upholding the punishment as also an order passed on revision on 7.4.2005 where the punishment has been toned down to posting as Shuntman with consequent reduction in pay.2. Though on account of the collusion of goods train, Station Master was also proceeded in a major penalty proceeding but against the applicant, a memorandum of a major penalty under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 has been issued whereby it is alleged that while posted as Cabinman on 14.2.2004 at Western Cabin from 0 to 8 shift, he had given slot for home signal for Haridawar 'UP' on line No. 10 whereas as the Station Regulation Rule 6.4.2.3 and 3.40/1B, the line should have been ensured to be...

Jagdish Chandra S/O Kahan Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondents and the OA has been taken up in terms of Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, since none has appeared on behalf of the applicant even on second call.The material available on record has been carefully considered.2. The applicant who is in the rank of Chief Engineer is seeking to quash and set aside the list/Presidential Order showing him as permanently absorbed in BSNL and further order dated 2.12.2005 posting and transferring him to BSNL instead of absorbing him in MTNL as per the first preference indicated by him in his option. He has, therefore, prayed for directions upon the respondents to absorb him in MTNL and pay the difference of salary/pay in various grades from April, 1998 when he was sent on deemed deputation to MTNL until the date of permanent absorption, as he has worked there on actual basis. Further, the respondents be directed to fix his pay in the IDA scales for the grades of Superintending Engineer (Civi...

Shri A.K. Malhotra S/O Late Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(i) Direct the respondents to grant 2nd ACP to the applicant in terms of the OM dt. 9/8/99 as he has completed more than 24 years of service. Direct the respondents to amend the rules and not to make promotions in violation of the same. Award costs and Pass any other order/directions as may be deemed just & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that Government of India issued a notification in 1984 revising the pay scales of Draftsmen in all Government of India offices on the basis of an Award given by the Board of Arbitration in C.P.W.D., where three grade structure has been evolved, whereas in Navy a four-tier structure of Tracer, Draftsman, Senior Draftsman and Head Draftsman exists. When the aforesaid C.P.W.D.Award was not adopted and implemented by Navy, it led to filing of OA-400/1991 before the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal, seeking extension of the orders issued by the Government in 1984, which was negated on 23.10.1992.3....

Smt. Bhagwati Devi, W/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Whether widow of casual labourer with temporary status, died in harness is entitled to family pension under the provisions of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993?, is the common question raised in these two applications.2. For sake of brevity, facts have been noticed from OA No. 1722/2005.Admitted facts are that applicant husband deceased Sukhram was appointed as casual labourer & granted temporary status w.e.f.03.7.1987, died on 23.9.1989. His provident fund contribution was paid to her on 06.2.1990. She was also accorded compassionate appointment on 06.3.1995. Thereafter she made several representations for grant of pension & pensionary benefits but no action had been taken thereon. It is stated that similarly situated persons namely Shankutla Devi filed OA No. 2550/2003 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of on 22.10.2003 with direction to respondents to pass reasoned and speaking order. Later respondents accorded her retirement benefits & family pension in r...