Delhi Court September 2006 Judgments

Shri Krishan Son of Late Shri Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Penalty of reduction in rank from Office Superintendent Grade-I to Assistant Superintendent in grade of Rs. 1600-2660/- from present pay of Rs. 2375-2250/- for a period of two years with cumulative effect inflicted vide order dated 9/12.8.1991, modified vide appellate order dated 31.8.1992 for a period of one year instead of two years, which is maintained by revisional authority order dated 09.2.2004 is challenged in present OA.2. Factual matrix of case is that applicant initially joined as Clerk on 20.7.1963, earned various promotions, lastly as Office Superintendent Grade-I in pay scale of Rs. 700-900/- w.e.f. 01.1.1984.He applied for leave from 01.3.1989 to 10.3.1989, which was duly sanctioned. Later he sought extension of leave from time to time. His daughter in law met with an accident and got burned on 03.1.1989, & ultimately collapsed on 26.3.1989, and thereafter he also fell ill; and his son was arrested. Without intimating any rejection of his request of extension of l...

Const. Afzal Ahmad No. 2404/Pcr Vs. the Commissioner of Police and

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant has challenged the punishment order imposed against him whereby his salary has been reduced to initial stage i.e. from Rs. 3500/- to Rs. 3050/- P.M. in the time scale of pay for a period of two years permanently and further they directed that the absence period shall be treated as not spent on duty. The applicant has also filed an appeal. The Appellate Authority having found no other mitigating circumstances reduced the punishment and affirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the punishment order passed by both the authorities, he has filed the present Original Application.2. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant for an unauthorized absence for the following periods:Sl. DD No. & Dt. DD No. & Dt. Period Absence fromNo. of absence of arrival D H M duty/leave/ Medical rest(from 1.7.99 to 4.7.99 medical rest permitted, later on marked absent w.e.f. 5.7.99 neither he join duty nor informed the department).3. These statements would disclose that ...

Man Mohan Nagi S/O Shri Bhag Ramji Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through t ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Though vide present OA applicant seeks quashment of communication dated 06.02.2003, rejecting his claim for regularization as MCC or Clerk-cum-Typist and issuing a direction to respondents to regularize him in the said post from the respective dates his juniors were regularized with all consequential benefits, Shri K.K. Patel, learned Counsel, at the outset, made a statement that he would be satisfied if the relief as granted in Badri Prasad and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.repatriation to substantive post and giving due weightage to the period spent by him on ad hoc basis in Group C is allowed.2. The facts as stated are that applicant joined Railways on 05.06.1979 as Khallasi and granted temporary status on 01.01.1984. He was put to work as ad hoc Material Checking Clerk (hereinafter referred as MCC) by Construction Organization w.e.f. 02.01.1993 and was given the benefit in grade of Rs. 260-400/-, revised to Rs. 950-1500/- w.e.f. 01.06.1985.He was screened by Construction Organ...

Raj Kumar S/O Shri Hukam Chand Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this O.A., applicant has challenged the order dated 31.7.2006 whereby his services have been terminated and order dated 10.3.2004 on the question of engagement of casual labourers. He has further sought a direction to the respondents to consider the engagement of the applicant as casual labourer in view of DOP&T guidelines dated 5.7.1968.2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was engaged as part time casual labourer-cum-chowkidar w.e.f. 15.12.1997 in place of his mother, who had put in 26 years of service with the respondents. His services were terminated w.e.f. 3.5.2001. However, vide order dated 1.2.2002, termination was set aside by this Tribunal. Accordingly, he was engaged from 30.5.2002 but once again he has been terminated illegally and arbitrarily w.e.f. 31.7.2006. He has relied on order dated 12.4.2006 to show that applicant was working 6 hours daily from 1.9.2004 and even though work was sanctioned upto 30.9.2006, applicants services have been terminated w.e.f...

Sidhu Service Station Vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and ors ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC171; 133(2006)DLT6

Vijender Jain, Acting C.J.1. This writ petition has been filed on account of rejection of the tender of the petitioner. Mr. Chandhiok, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the condition of earnest money deposit of Rs. 5000/- was not mandatory and in support of this contention, the learned senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the chart filed by the respondent themselves in cases where pan card was not provided by the tenderer, lorry not offered or photograph not provided and in cases where tenderer and export license holder is different, the respondent has accepted offers of all such bidders. It has also been contended by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the dealer of the product of the respondent. The petitioner has its own outlet. The land wherefrom the petitioner is operating petrol pump belongs to him and an amount of over Rs. 1 lac was already lying credited in the account of the respondent...

Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nath Bros. Exim International

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)208CTR(Del)326; [2007]288ITR670(Delhi)

ORDER1. The Revenue is aggrieved by an order dt. 2nd Sept., 2005, passed by the Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'B', in ITA No. 1555/Del/2005 relevant for the asst. yr. 1996-97.2. The only question that has arisen in this case is whether the assessed is liable for penalty under Section 271(1)(c) r/w Expln. 1(B) of the IT Act, 1961. Learned Counsel for the Revenue has taken us through the relevant provision and it appears on a reading thereof that before penalty can be imposed on the assessed, there are three requirements that have to be fulfillled, namely, that in respect of facts material to the computation of his total income, the assessed offers an Explanationn which he is not able to substantiate, that the assessed fails to prove that his Explanationn is bona fide and that the assessed has not disclosed all the facts relating to his income and material to the computation of his total income.3. In this case, the Tribunal has proceeded on a consideration of the third ingredient, which was not ...

State (Delhi Admn.) Vs. Udham Singh and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT8; II(2006)DMC544; 2006(91)DRJ576

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 1985 has been filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi vide his judgment dated 28.11.1984.2. Brief facts of the case, as have been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, are:That on 15.2.1983 at 5. AM D.D. No. 5 was recorded at P.S. Tilak Nagar by the duty officer there. On information received by him from the Police Control Room about an occurrence at B-III, A-12, Shan Nagar. The duty officer, after recording that D.D., handed over a copy thereof to S.I. Bachan Singh for enquiry. The said S.I. Bachan Singh proceeded to the spot but was told that the incident had actually taken place at B-III/37 Vishnu Garden. Consequently he went to that house at Vishnu Garden. There he was told that one lady in a burnt condition had already been removed to the Willingdon Hospital by her husband and other members of his family. Meanwhile at 5.15 A.M. the duty officer P.S.Tilak Nagar rece...

Air Control and Chemical Engg. Co. Ltd. and anr. Vs. Bharat Bijlee Ltd ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: I(2007)BC198; [2007]135CompCas301(Delhi); 133(2006)DLT21

Vijender Jain, Acting C.J.1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the AAIFR the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court. The AAIFR vide its order dated 7.9.2000 had observed that the respondent had supplied certain material to the appellant in the first quarter of the year 1999. Mr. Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the goods were received by the appellant prior to the cut off date of 31.3.1999. As per appellant, the scheme formulated by the BIFR was applicable to the case of the respondent as well.2. From the perusal of the order of the AAIFR which is from page 82 to 86, paragraph 5 is important.5. The most important point in the matter before us is that goods were supplied by the appellant company to the first respondent company after the preparation of the draft rehabilitation scheme (DRS) and payments were due from the first respondent company to the appellant during the course of the implementation of the sanctioned scheme. By no st...

The Workmen of Northern Railway Zonal Training School Mess Canteen Kar ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT18

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner(s) have assailed the award passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal, New Delhi dated 30.7.1993.2. The crux of the controversy raised by the petitioner is whether the Mess Committee of Uttar Railway Zonal Training School, Chandausi, Moradabad was an 'industry' or not and if the employees working in the mess of the training school were covered under the Industrial Dispute Act.3. It is undisputed fact that the trainees of the Railway Zonal Training School formed a committee in order to run the mess where they took meals. The trainees used to get Rs.13/- as meal allowance and used to pool this amount to run the mess. The members of the mess committee used to be out of the trainees and the principal of the training institute was ex-officio President of the committee. The workers working in the mess raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Tribunal and the question arose whether the mess committee was an '...

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Braham Dutt Sharma Vs. the Presiding Office ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 133(2006)DLT24; (2007)ILLJ262Del

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.1. By this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of award dated dated 7.4.1999 passed by Labour Court VI, Delhi, whereby the Tribunal answered the reference against the petitioner.2. Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner claimed that he was working as driver with the respondent with effect from 1.9.1988 as a daily rated/casual/muster roll worker. His services were terminated despite his unblemished record on 1.7.1999, without assigning any reason. He was also not being given the same salary and rights which were being given to the regular drivers, doing identical work with the respondent and it amounted to sheer exploitation. He claimed that he was entitled for regularization and his termination was not in accordance with Section 25F of Industrial Disputes Act since he had worked for 240 days continuously. No domestic enquiry was held against him for any misconduct. He also claimed that he remained unemployed since 1.7.1989. He claimed rei...