Delhi Court August 2006 Judgments

Navrang Lal S/O Ram Sewak Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA applicant has sought protection of pay which he had last drawn while working in the Construction Organization when he was repatriated to his parent Division, i.e., respondent No. 3.2. Applicant is stated to have been initially appointed as daily rated casual mate w.e.f. 11.1.1977 under PWI/Const./Suratgarh in scale Rs. 210-270 (RS). He was granted temporary status w.e.f. 7.5.1984 as mate in grade Rs. 225-308. He is stated to have been regularized as Gangman, a Group D post, on 31.3.1997. On 23.6.2001 he was repatriated to his substantive post in the parent Division, i.e., respondent No. 3.Applicant is seeking protection of pay that he was getting while working as mate in the Construction Division. In this behalf, applicant has relied on order dated 29.11.2001 in OA No. 1917/2000 Liakat Ali v.Union of India and Ors. (Annexure P/1) in which though claim for regularization from the date of utilization of his services as mate in the Construction Division was reject...

Virender Kumar Kaul S/O Shri S.L. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. It is trite that the Recruitment Rules (RRs, for short) under Article 309 of the Constitution of India govern service conditions, including promotion of Government employees. Whenever a post held by a Government servant has no promotional avenues and there are no RRs to operate promotion, it is always administrative instructions which operate the field.2. In the above backdrop the Fifth Central Pay Commission with an object to create a safety net to the Government servants to deal with the problems of genuine stagnation and hardship faced by the employees due to lack of adequate promotional avenues recommended introduction of the Assured Career Progression (ACP, for short) Scheme.3. The aforesaid Scheme envisages grant of two financial upgradation on completion of 12 and 24 years of service respectively. The grant of ACP would be governed following the same criteria as of regular DPC in exploring the suitability for upgradation.4. The conditions for grant of benefits under the Sche...

Ex-si Ajay Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(1)SLJ274CAT

1. By this O.A. applicant has challenged order dated 24.10.2003 (page 41) whereby applicant has been dismissed from service, order dated 24.12.2003 (page 37) whereby his appeal was rejected and letter dated 26.2.2004 (page 36) whereby he was informed that revision petition is not maintainable as Rule 25 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1994 has been declared as ultra vires (page 36-A).2. It is submitted by the applicant that while applicant was working as Sub Inspector, summary of allegation was issued to him, which reads as follows: It is alleged SI Ajay Singh No. D/3628 posted at DAP Vith Bn. He developed illicit relations with Mrs. Meenu Sharma r/o 380 Shastri Nagar, Delhi, On 17th May, 2001 Meenu left her house with her daughter. The matter was reported to PS Sarai Rohilla as it was suspected that she has gone with SI Ajay Singh. On 18th May, 2001 SI Ajay Singh produced her in the PS. It is further alleged that SI Ajay Singh broke open the lock of House No. G-9, Jaga...

Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(2)SLJ63CAT

1. Confidential roll of a Government servant is just like a mirror, which reflects his performance, which is paramount to be considered for progression in the hierarchy of service. Though statutory rules and administrative instructions framed operate the field of writing confidential reports and it is on the basis of a self-appraisal of an officer, which is on the basis of watching the performance of the concerned for a statutory period. A three-tier system of Reporting Officer, Reviewing Authority as well as Accepting Authority has been devised. In nutshell, if the performance of a Government servant is not found 'upto the mark' and any remark, which partakes a character of an adverse remarks, has to be recorded only when a condition precedent of informing the concerned of deficiency in performance of duties is apprised with an opportunity to correct. If it is not so, then the ACR recorded, which lacks in accord of opportunity in case of falling performance would not be admissible in...

Dr. D.N. Pandey, Ex. Jt. Advisor, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this case the applicant has prayed for fixation of his pay from 1.1.1996 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.2003.2. Respondents in the counter-affidavit have submitted that they have considered the case of the applicant and found that though there were certain inadvertent mistakes in fixation of applicant's salary from 1.1.1996 yet they have subsequently rectified the same by issuing a draft order, which shall be communicated to him after the disposal of this case.3. We find that there were some mistakes in fixation of applicant's salary w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.2003.Learned Counsel appearing for the applicant has submitted that why should the applicant suffer for the latches of the respondents. It is further stated that time and again the applicant has been claiming that the respondents have committed such mistakes in fixation of his salary, yet they had not issued any order rectifying their mistakes.4. After hearing the learned Counsel f...

Shri Om Prakash (Retd. Store Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. At the outset, learned proxy counsel for applicant forgoes his relief prayed under column 8 (iii) of the OA for extending the benefit of seniority with effect from 1976 - 1987. Rest of the reliefs are as follows: Direct the respondents to release the 10 months salary amounting to Rs. 70000/- w.e.f. December 1996 to October 1997; Direct the respondents to release the salary of 7 months amounting to Rs. 63,000/- w.e.f. 30.3.2000 to 30.10.2000; and Direct the respondents to pay the overtime dues as per calculation and release the pass and PTO in favour of the applicant.2. A long drawn history of the litigation is emanated from OA-1176/2002, which pertained to quashing of the charge-sheet, release of balance arrears and release of salary of the applicant. Directions issued on 22.10.2002 disposed of the said OA to pass a speaking order in accordance with the claim of Rs. 3,75,638/-. Contempt petition No.126/2000 was disposed of on 19.9.2000 resulted in payment of Rs. 43,877/- to the app...

Sanjay Khanna S/O M. L. Khanna Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Through this OA applicant has challenged penalty of censure awarded in disciplinary proceedings against him. The learned Counsel of applicant pointed out that while the enquiry officer did not find applicant guilty of the alleged misconduct, the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry officer served dissenting note as also the enquiry report upon applicant vide Annexure A-3 dated 27.2.2004. The disciplinary authority after considering applicant's representation in response to Annexure A-3, vide Annexure A-6 dated 12.4.2004 imposed upon applicant penalty of reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay by three stages for three years with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of this period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. Vide impugned orders Annexure A-1 dated 7.6.2006 the appellate authority after giving a personal hearing to applicant decided his a...

State Vs. Sushil Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2006(92)DRJ165

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. By this common judgment, we propose to dispose of-Death Sentence Reference No. 1 of 2005 as also Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2005. The State seeks to justify the judgment and order of conviction as also the sentence imposed.2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, vide his judgment and order dated 9.8.2005 are as follows:The brief facts of the prosecution case are that DD No. 18A dated 28.1.2002 was recorded at police station Sarita Vihar at 7.40 P.M. that on 5.57 P.M. an information was received that at House No. 172 Madanpur Khadar, Khari Kaun a lady has been murdered. A copy of DD was sent to SI Harish Kumar through Ct. Sudhir Kumar. On receipt of DD, SI Harish Kumar along with Ct. Brij Bhushan reached at the spot at house No. 172 Madan Pur Khadar Khari Kaun where in the second floor of the house in a room on the rack, three suitcases were lying, out of which middle suit case was having its lock broken and in the kitchen by the...

Nand Kishore and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(94)DRJ282

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. These writ petitions challenge the Order dated 3.1.2006 passed by the Land Acquisition Collector (LAC), North West, Khanjawala, Delhi, Respondent No. 2. The said order reads as under:Notice is issued and placed in file for Shri Om Prakash S/o Malkhan, Shri Nand Kishore and Brijesh R/o Ward Nmo. 15/05-6, Village Holambi Kalan, and the report is presented for necessary action.sd/-illegible3.1.0603.01.2006Present:1. Shri Om Prakash-Claimant2. Shri R. Section Dalai-Counsel for the Claimant.13.Sh. Nand Kishore Tyagi-Objector.The objector requested a day's time for negotiated settlement. In case, there is no negotiated settlement, the parties shall back to compensation with LAC be further orders. List on 05.01.2006.sd/-illegible3.1.0603.01.20062. The brief facts leading to the above Order are that an Award No. 15/2005-06/(DC)NW was made by the LAC (NW) on 23.9.2005 in respect of lands measuring 1440 bigha 4 biswa in village Holambi Kalan, Delhi. The petitioners 1 and 2 her...

Cit Vs. H.M.A. Udyog (P) Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)211CTR(Del)543

ORDER1. The revenue is aggrieved by an order dated 13-12-2005 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Delhi Bench SMC in ITA No. 5571/Delhi/2004 for the assessment year 1995-96.2. The assessed was earlier in the business of advertisement activities of various cigarette products and also concerned with garment manufacturing and sale. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year in question, the assessed started a business of restaurants and film distributorship and carried out extensive repairs in his commercial premises.3. The assessed claimed the expenditure as a revenue expenditure but the assessing officer was of the view that this represented a capital expenditure and, thereforee, made the requisite addition. Penalty proceedings were also initiated against the assessed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act.4. The view of the assessing officer on merits of the case was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal.5. In so far as the penalt...