Delhi Court September 2006 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.
Sh. Tushar Ranjan Mohanty S/O Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary and malafide Show Cause Notice issued on 27.07.2006, which is also ultra vires of all the statutory rules including the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, issued by the President of India. He has challenged the said show cause notice on the ground that not only it is ultra vires but it is asking him to explain his misconduct that is not specified therein. It appears to be nothing but a malicious action to harass him.2. The applicant is presently posted as Chief Statistical Adviser in the Directorate of Income Tax. He received a Show Cause Notice on 27.07.2006 from the respondents to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. He was taken aback at the statements in the said Memorandum. It was stated in the Show Cause Notice that a letter dated 31.03.2006 was received from Sh. Y.K. Kalsi and this letter was sent from the residence of...
Sh. Fulchand Kitadikar S/O Late Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. These 11 applicants have filed the present OA for a direction to the respondents to revise the pay scale of Photographers and grant them the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000 as a replacement scale of Rs. 1200-2040 as per the recommendation of the 5th Central Pay Commission.2. These applicants were appointed as Photographer in the Armed Forces Headquarters/Inter Service Organisations of the Ministry of Defence in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 on different dates between 6.6.89 and 15.11.95 (the date of appointment of applicant No. 11, however, has not been mentioned). In accordance with the recommendations with the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC) the Defence Ministry restructured the posts of Photographer in different offices in the Ministry of Defence and redesignated them as Photographer Grade-II and has granted them replacement scale of Rs. 4000-6000. Applicants contend that the general common replacement pay scale of the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 as per recommendation of the 5th CPC...
Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Late Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through t ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. By this O.A. the applicant Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma has sought the following main reliefs: (a) direct the respondents not to harass him for lodging complaints against them. (b) direct the respondents not to consider him for out station touring work in view of his ill health. (c) direct the respondents to regularize two spells of leave taken by him between the period from 21.12.2004 to 02.03.2005. (d) direct the respondents to consider his period of leave as duty with full wages. The applicant is an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India and is presently posted in the Internal Audit Wing of the said Ministry. He joined here after having been transferred from Ministry of Urban Development on 24.08.2004. It is his contention that due to pre-conceived bias by the respondents, particularly, Sh. Manoj Sethi, the then Controller of Accounts, Ministry of Urban Development, the respondents No. 3 & 5 have posted the applicant in a tou...
Mohd. Abdullha S/O Samivlla Vs. Lt. Governor Through Secretary,
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. The applicant has filed this case for quashing and setting aside the order dated 13.04.2006 (Annexure A-1) whereby the Respondent No. 3 has cancelled his candidature. A further prayer has also been made seeking a direction against the respondents to consider the applicant's case to the post of Medical Officer (Unani). The applicant has completed his Bachelor in Unani Medicine & Science (BUMS) in the year 1997 and secured first position in the merit list. In the same year he claimed to have applied for practicing as Unani Doctor with the Council but was got enrolled only in the year 1998. Pursuant to the advertisement by the Respondent No. 3 dated 12-18.07.2003 the applicant submitted his candidature for the post of Medical Officer in the grade of Rs. 8000-13500. The essential qualification for the post was a Bachelor Degree in Unani from recognized university. The applicant was invited for the interview but he was not selected rather the respondent-authorities selected other fe...
Subhash Chand S/O Babu Ram and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. The facts and issues in these OAs being identical, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. For convenience, facts have been taken and stated here from OA No.2949/2004. Applicants who are working as Technician-II since 29.8.1997 have challenged Annexure-1 dated 13.9.2004 whereby alleged juniors S/Shri Pradeep Kumar, Laloo Prashad, Bhagwan Dass and Ram Niwas, i.e., respondents 4 to 7, have been granted promotion on pro forma basis as also seniority as TLF-III with consequential benefits from the date their juniors S/Shri Rajinder Kumar, Hargovind Pant etc., were assigned seniority as TLF-II in grade Rs. 4000-6000 above Shri Rajender Kumar.These private respondents are stated to have been accorded above benefits in terms of Tribunal's orders dated 20.3.2003 in OA No.408/2001.3. Applicants are stated to have joined the Railways initially as casual labourers. Their services were regularized as Khalasi on 28.7.1978. Thereafter they were promoted as Helper Khalasi in 1984, and ...
Sh. Ram Kumar S/O Sh. Mani Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. Applicant, who is a civilian employee of respondent No. 2 has filed the present OA for declaring that he (the applicant) is not a surplus employee and for setting aside the movement order dated 29.6.2005 and the order dated 30.6.2005 with all consequential benefits including pay and allowances etc.2. The background of the case is as follows. Applicant joined Gorkha Resettlement Training Movement, Raiwala, Dehradun as Civilian Instructor Radio/TV on 28.4.88. It was a Group C post in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 (Rs. 3050-4500 revised). The respondent vide letter dated 5.10.2004 asked him to give his choice/option to be posted at another suitable station etc. To be pricise the letter, Annexure A-3, stated as under: 1. Due to the revision of PE of this establishment the Group C staff is no more authorized. 2. Accordingly Army Headquarters vide its letter No 15989/ST II/MP4 (Civ) (b) dated 10 Sep 2004 has asked for the following: (b) Your willingness to serve in equivalent/similar or ...
R.C. Dua S/O Dhalu Ram, Health and Vs. Shri V.N. Mathur, General
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. Through this petition applicant has alleged wilful and deliberate non-compliance of Tribunal's directions contained in order dated 12.7.2005 whereby OA No. 923/2005 was disposed of quashing and setting aside the impugned orders and directing the respondents to pass appropriate order in accordance with rules on seniority, promotion and other consequential benefits including arrears from the date immediate junior was promoted.2. The learned Counsel of applicant pointed out that six junior persons of applicant were promoted to the scale of Rs. 7450-11500 w.e.f.26.5.2004. Applicant has not been so promoted though he has been given benefit of ACP Scheme w.e.f. 30.6.2000. The learned Counsel particularly pointed out that applicant ought to have been given benefit of promotion with effect from the date his junior, namely, Shri H. C. Gambhir had been promoted.3. The learned Counsel further stated that the learned Counsel of respondents had confirmed at the time of arguments in the OA that ...
Laxmi NaraIn Yadav Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. Through this OA applicant has challenged Annexure-1 dated 11.4.2003 whereby respondents have re-fixed applicant's pay w.e.f. 1.1.1973 and also directed recovery to be made from him after taking into consideration his representation made in response to respondents show cause notice Annexure-2 dated 3.1.2002.2. It has been averred that applicant had earlier filed case No. 77/52 before the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Bikaner. That case was decided favouring applicant. Respondents appeal thereagainst was partly allowed by the District Judge, Bikaner vide orders dated 17.9.1990 (Annexure-7) declaring that applicant's next date of increment should be 19.8.1968 when his basic pay should have been Rs. 170/- per month.Respondents appeal against the orders of the District Judge was rejected. Applicant had filed OA No. 2558/2001 before the Tribunal seeking re-fixation of his pay on the basis of the findings of the District Judge. During the pendency of that OA respondents issued a s...
Mahesh Chandra Son of Shri Ram Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
2. In the matter of administration of justice as well as dispensation of justice, it is only substantial justice, which is to be imparted to the parties. If in the way of the meritorious claim, technical objections or hyper technical pleas raised to defeat the interest or the meritorious claim of the parties, then it has to be rejected at the outset. However, the trite law is that delay defeats justice and one, who sleeps over his right, looses his remedy, as one of the objections raised by the respondents' learned Counsel as to the limitation relying upon the Apex Court in P.K. Ramachandran v. State of Kerala and Anr. and also an objection to Rule 4 (5) of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 by stating that joining together in a single petition as a condition precedent requires signing of the application by all the applicants and it cannot be done in a representative capacity by one person. Another objection raised that all the applicants are not similarly circumstanced whereas view of them ...
Sh. Jai Charan Verma S/O Sh. Hukam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through It ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-14-2006
1. The applicant was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police on 30.3.1968. Three FIRs, namely, FIR No. 398/90 under Section 308/34 IPC dated 23.12.1990, FIR No. 129/93 dated 7.4.1993 and FIR No. 400/2000 dated 12.12.2000 were registered against him. He was dismissed from service by invoking the powers under Article 311(2)(b). Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, he approached the Tribunal by filing OA-475/2004 (Annexure. A/10) and the Tribunal by its order dated 16.8.2004 quashed the order of dismissal and directed that the applicant should be reinstated in service. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction, the applicant was reinstated in service and retired on 31.1.2005. Meanwhile, a criminal case was registered against the applicant arising from FIR No. 398/90 dated 23.10.1990. It is undisputed that by a common order dated 15.7.2003, a case arising from FIR No. 398/90 and a case arising from FIR No. 129/93 have been disposed of by recording an order of acquittal in favour of the ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »