Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

NavIn Chandra Pant S/O Shri Vs. the Joint Secretary and the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of the present OA, the applicant assails the Memorandum dated 19.7.2004 whereby the applicant has been conveyed the adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the applicant for the period from 1.6.2003 to 31.5.2004 as well as the order passed by the respondents in representation dated 15.10.2004 whereby the request for expunction of remarks has been turned down.2. Learned Counsel for applicant stated that the present adverse remarks recorded in the ACR of the applicant are actuated with malafide of respondent No. 4, i.e., the then Principal, who had taken over the charge in August 2003 and thereafter by issuing so many explanations without any basis with a purpose to create grounds to mar his ACR, the above culminated into adverse remarks, which are not founded on factual position.3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and stated that the remarks have been recorded on the basis of performance of the applicant, as he had been i...

S.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA, applicant has challenged order dated 25.2.2004 (page 13). He has also sought a direction to the respondents to grant him the benefit of promotion to the grade of Charge Mechanic(Refrigeration) from the date he qualified the said trade test in the year 1977 i.e.with effect from September, 1977 with all consequential benefits, like arrears of pay and allowances, seniority and further promotion etc.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he has been serving as Refrigeration Mechanic for the last more than 30 years i.e., with effect from June 1973. He appeared and passed the trade test for promotion to the grade of Charge Mechanic (Refrigeration) in September, 1977 but in spite of it till date neither, he has been given promotion nor he has been considered against one of the four vacancies available to be filled on the basis of trade test conducted in the year 1977. He has further submitted, the very fact that the trade test was held in 1977 shows that vacancies were avail...

Shri Sukha Singh S/O Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. When public functionaries discharge their statutory duties, an element of discretion is always involved in the process. The aforesaid discretion has to be exercised judiciously. What connotes judicious exercise of discretion is to distinguish between right or wrong, balance the factors for and against the order to be passed and after evaluating it in the context of the rules and law, an order passed would be an appropriate lawful order, which on exercise of discretion is not only reasonable but also in accordance with law.3. With the aforesaid, a background long history of the case suggests that the penalty of removal inflicted upon the applicant on 4.6.1984 on the ground of embezzlement, which, when challenged, has been laid at rest by the Apex Court by dismissing the SLP. Later on the applicant has sought compassionate allowance, as provided under the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'Pension Rules, 1993') by filing OA-2447/95 wherein by an order...

Amarnath S/O Sh. B.N. Srivastava Vs. Union of India (Uoi), (Through th ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 2236/2004 under Section 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking permission to join together in a single OA is allowed. (a) Declaring the actions of the respondents by which the respondents have not been considering the case of the applicants for promotion from Group 'D' to Group 'C' and instead of considering the same the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicants on the pretext that the applicants have been extended the benefits of ACP Scheme is as illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, against the mandatory provisions of law and violative of Article 14 & 16 of Constitution of India. To quash and setting aside the impugned order dt. 14.11.2002 issued by the respondents in compliance of the orders dt. 14.11.2000 issued by their lordships in O.A. No. 2436/1998 by which the respondents have misconceived and rejected the claim of the applicants for considering for promotion to the applicants for nex...

The Secretary, Coordination Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. MA No. 2284/2005 is allowed directing that in the Memo of Parties at P-1, Secretary, Coordination Committee of Central Excise Associations, Commissionerate Ghaziabad be taken as Applicant No. 1 instead of Applicant and below that Shri Sudershan Kumar Sharma (affected person) Haveldar, O/o the Commissioner, Central Excise & Customs Ghaziabad be added as Applicant No. 2.2. Challenge in the OA is made to order dated 10.08.2005 whereby Sr.Accounts Officer (Coord) in the Office of Pr. Chief Controller of Accounts, Central Board of Excise & Customs, New Delhi, directed Pay & Accounts Officers, Ghaziabad, Noida & PAO (C.Ex.) Delhi (under whose jurisdiction Faridabad & Gurgaon falls) to stop payment to employees posted at these places of the transport allowance at the rates of A-1/A-Class cities with immediate effect. The overpayment of transport allowance already made may be recovered through DDOs with immediate effect in easy instalments. Vide para-2 of said Memorandu...

Tungal Singh, India Govt. Mint Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Since relief claimed in these OAs is identical, the same are being disposed of by the present common order. The relief prayed reads as follows: (a) Placement of applicants in the scale, as recommended by 5th Central Pay Commission for the post and as accepted by the Deptt. of Personnel and Training under their OM of dated 24.09.1998. (b) Payment of incentive @ 30% of the salary as paid to other Industrial workmen in view of the judgment of Apex court from the date of their appointment. (c) Any other benefit to applicants in the interest of justice on the present circumstances.Applicant in this OA is working on post of Manager, which was earlier placed in pay scale of Rs.1320-2040/-, has been granted corresponding revised scale of Rs.4000-6000/-. Earlier he has filed OA 2465/2004 seeking - (a) placement in the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200/- from the date of his initial appointment and in revised scale of Rs.5000-8000/- from 1.1.1996; (b) direction to India Government Min...

P.K. Handoo Vs. Estate Officer and Director, Directorate of Estates

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 132(2006)DLT672

J.M. Malik, J.1. The petitioner is a Kashmiri Pandit and belongs to the minority community in Kashmir Valley. He was working with Intelligence Bureau Government of India and retired on 31.7.2004. He was allotted government accommodation, D-45 Mandir Marg, Gole Market, New Delhi. The Estate Officer passed the eviction order against him on 30.6.2005. The petitioner has filed the instant writ in the nature of the mandamus with the prayer to quash the eviction order and directions be issued to the respondents to allow the petitioner to retain the above said quarter till the government makes it possible for him to return to Srinagar or till the suitable alternate accommodation is provided to him anywhere in Delhi or till such time the Court deems it fit and appropriate on payment of normal license fee.2. Petitioner points out that due to extraordinary circumstances he was left with no other alternative but to file the instant writ petition. He has enumerated the following extraordinary circ...

Jai Singh Sharma and ors. Vs. Delhi Development Authority

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(91)DRJ423

Manju Goel, J.1. The petitioners are seeking financial upgradation as was assured to them vide the DDA circular dated 14.10.1999, placed on the file as Annexure-P1. This circular followed the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission. It refers to the Government of India's Office Memo No. 35034/1/97-Estt.(D) dated 9.8.1999 and mentions financial upgradation after 12 and 24 years of regular service without creating new posts for that purpose and applicable to Group 'B', 'C' and 'D' employees as well as to isolated categories of Group 'A'. This circular then requires the concerned branches of Personnel Department to identify the categories or persons eligible for the scheme and to propose their names to Deputy Director (CR) for further action. The petitioners are Senior Stenographers. They say that they were appointed in 1981 and ever since their appointment, they did not get a single promotion in their career. They claimed that they are entitled to the Assured Career Progression Schem...

Cit Vs. Malibu Estate (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2006)205CTR(Del)134; [2008]298ITR72(Delhi)

ORDERBy The CourtThe revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 28-11-2003 passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'G' in ITA Nos. 991 and 992/Del/2000 relevant for the assessment year 1996-97.2. The assessed is said to be a flagship company in what it describes as a joint venture agreement with four other companies.A project called the 'Malibu Township' was initiated by these five companies in the State of Haryana, It appears that under the local laws no entity could hold more than 28 acres of land and for a township to be set up there was a requirement of a minimum land holding of 100 acres. It is under these circumstances that the five companies decided to form a joint venture for development of land under the name of 'Malibu Town'.3. The question that arose before the IT authorities was whether these companies constitute an 'AOP' within the meaning of section 2(31)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.4. According to the assessing officer, the entire control and management of all the five compan...

Deep Jot Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 131(2006)DLT469; 2006(92)DRJ735

S. Muralidhar, J.1. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner in 1999 after his efforts at recovering the compensation for the acquisition by the respondents of land belonging to him failed. It is only through the intervention and orders of this Court that ultimately the amount determined to be payable by the award was paid to the petitioner. The award was dated 10.9.1997 and the final payment was made, after a number of hearings, only on 16.2.2005. As regards the payment of interest on the period of delay, this Court by the judgment dated 5.5.2005 gave liberty to the petitioner to raise this issue along with the issue concerning grant of enhanced compensation before the Civil Court. Further in the judgment dated 5.5.2005, while disposing of the writ petition, this Court issued the following directions:In view of our above discussion we dispose of this writ petition while granting liberty to the Petitioner to raise all these issues before the Court of competent jurisdiction. We fu...