Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Tasnemul Haq Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 141(2007)DLT647

ORDER:This is an application by Mohd Islam-Ul-Uk s/o Mohd Salim-ul-uk that the land in question belonged to Salim-ul-Hak and devoted on his death, on his son, daughters and widows according to Muslim Law. The sons from one wife had no share left on account of Mithal partitions petitions mother also died and his two brothers and two sisters and he succeeded. The plaintiff never migrated to Pakistan and has thereforee his 1/3 shares in tact. He wants that his one third shares in the land in question be declared not to be evacuee property.The evidence led by him conclusively shows that he has all along been here serving in the Lady Irwin Hospital as Senior Clerk. thereforee his share could not be evacuee property. Extent of his share is established by the Revenue Record showing that his step brothers had no share left in this land on account of partition among the family members and this land came to plaintiff mother and brother. Plaintiff's mother died later but the step son could have n...

V.K. Garg and Ravinder Kaushal Vs. Lt. Governor and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 140(2007)DLT69; 2007(95)DRJ498

Hima Kohli, J.1. Both the writ petitions are taken up for final hearing and disposal by passing a common judgment and order, as counsels for the parties have stated that the facts of both the cases are same and issues involved are also common. For the sake of convenience, facts of WP(C) No. 998/1991 are taken note of.2. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22nd March, 1991 passed by the respondents, imposing penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner. He has also sought a declaration to the effect that the order passed by the Appellate Authority upon reviewing its earlier decision dated 3.10.1989, in the absence of any such provision for review, is illegal and thus the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.3. The factual matrix of the case, as culled out from the record is that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Manager (Technical) in respondent No. 2/Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (hereina...

Rekha and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(1)ARBLR356(Delhi); 140(2007)DLT232

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. This writ petition challenges the order dated 21st January, 2006 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT') by which the CAT quashed the advertisement issued by the Respondent No. 2, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, which prescribed B.Ed. as educational qualification for the appointment to the post of primary teachers and that those candidates who possessed B.Ed as an educational qualification were also held eligible for appointment and were permitted to submit application. The relevant portion of the advertisement prescribing the eligibility reads as follows:i) Senior Secondary (Class XII) with 50% marks:ii) JBT after Senior Secondary (Class XII or B.Ed. or equivalent or B.EL. Ed.iii) Proficiency in teaching through Hindi and English Media (will be judged by way of descriptive type written examination of 10th Standard.)2. For the sake of convenience, we have taken up facts of the W.P. (C) No. 15098-100/2006...

Nafe Singh Vs. State (Nct of Delhi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007(95)DRJ338

R.S. Sodhi, J.1. Criminal Appeal No. 338/2003 seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 03.05.2003 in Sessions Case No. 32/2001 arising out of FIR No. 56/2001 police station Kapashera whereby learned Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty for an offence of murder and convicted him under Section 302 IPC as also under Section 27 of Arms Act and has sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC together with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for one year. He also sentenced the appellant for three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 27 Arms Act along with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default further rigorous imprisonment for six years.2. Brief facts as have been noticed by the Additional Sessions Judge are as under:Mother of accused Jagmal had died at very old age. It is customary in some parts of our country that when a man or woman dies at very old age, it is celebrated and a function is organized. Jagmal had organised a simil...

Bhilai Iron and Steel Processing Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)9STR164

By letter dated 10-3-2007, the appellant requested to decide the case on its merits in their absence. Heard the learned authorised representative (DR) and perused the records. After hearing the learned DR and on perusal of the record, this appeal is admitted.2. The applicant filed stay application for waiver of pre-deposit of tax of Rs. 25,688/- and penalty of the equal amount. There is allegation of wrong availment of Service tax paid amounting to Rs. 25,688/- as the documents, which the applicant had used for payment of onward transportation with TR-6 challan which is not specified as valid documents for taking Cenvat credit under Rule 9 of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.1 find that the issue is prima facie covered in favour of the applicant by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Birla Corporation Limited v. CCE, Jaipur vide Stay Order No. 93/07-EX, dated 24-1-2007 [2007 (6) S.T.R. 247 (Tri.-Del)]. Hence, the requirement of pre-deposit of duty and penalty is stayed till the dispo...

Ex-const. Narendar Singh S/O Shri Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of disciplinary authority's order dated 23rd March, 2005 inflicting penalty of dismissal, as upheld by appellate authority's order dated 11th August, 2005 have been challenged in this application filed under Section 19 of A.T. Act. Applicant also challenges findings of inquiry officer whereunder the charge levelled against him was held to be proved and established beyond any shadow of doubt. Further, he seeks reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits including back wages, costs etc.2. Admitted facts are that applicant appointed as Constable in the year 1984 was proceeded for certain acts of misconduct under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred as the Rules). He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.04.2004, which remained in force till aforesaid penalty order was passed. Summary of allegations dated 11.06.2004 besides lists of witnesses and documents were served upon him. Primary allegation was that while...

Mohinder Singh S/O Late Sh. Ram Vs. Shekar Dutt, Secretary Defence,

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings.2. Applicants in present CP were the applicants in OA-984/2004. As noticed vide para 2 of the order dated 20.9.2005 while disposing of the said OA they had sought direction to respondents to place them to the post of Programmer w.e.f. 1.1.86 in terms of order in OA-553/2003 (R.K.Pareek and Ors. v. Union of India). While disposing of the said OA direction has been issued to the respondents to consider the claim of each applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In case it is found that applicants were similarly placed at par with the applicants in several OAs No. 351/99 and 1218/2002 and other OAs, then applicant would be entitled to the said scale.3. It is contended by the applicants that the aforesaid directions remained uncomplied with.4. Respondents, on the other hand, contended that vide order dated 19.5.2006 all the 9 applicants were already granted the relief claimed.Moreover their representati...

Shri K.S. Yadav, Section Officer, Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. It is not disputed that Section Officers' in Central Secretariat Services (CSS) have been allowed the pay scale of Rs. 8000-275-13500 notionally from 1.1.1996 and actually from 3.10.2003.3. From the reply filed by the respondents, in Paragraphs 4.9 & 4.10, the following averments have been made: 4.9 That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. It is submitted that on the analogy of the benefit of non-functional scale of Rs. 8000-13500 given to Section Officers in CSS, a proposal was moved to MHA/MoF for similar dispensation to Section Officers of Intelligence Bureau, who though not a part and parcel of CSS, being carved out of CSS on security considerations. Rest of this para wrong and denied. 4.10 That the contents of this para are wrong and denied. It is submitted that it is a fact that IB Secretariat Service has always been treated at par with CSS in terms of ranks, structure, pay scales etc. It is further added that prior to implementation of the recommendations of ...

H.C. Vijay Pal Singh No. 45/Sec. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Challenge in the present application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, is to Annexures A-1 (Colly.) dated 11.10.2004 and 22.03.2004, by which the applicant was awarded penalty of forfeiture of two years of approved service temporarily entailing reduction in the pay of the applicant for a period mentioned in the impugned order and also the order of the appellate authority dated 11.10.2004 by which the appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed.2. The brief facts of the case reveal that the applicant was enlisted in Delhi Police as Constable on 01.05.1982 and was promoted to the post of Head Constable on 01.07.1995. A report with regard to quarrel in Street No. 13 at Ashok Nagar, was received by the Police Station M.S.Park, Delhi. An F.I.R. was registered at the instance of Smt. Krishna wife of Shri Surender Singh. The case of the applicant is that by Order No. 2139-39/HAP/SEC/P-1 dated 23.3.2004 issued by the fourth respondent, a department...

Forum of Research Associates and Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Reported in: (2008)(1)SLJ241CAT

1. Forum of Research Associates and Research Fellows in Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) have impugned respondents' guidelines dated 21.7.2004, laying down age limit for appointment to the posts of Research Associate, Senior Research Fellow and Junior Research Fellow.2. A brief factual matrix transpires that one of applicants along with others in OA-438/1997, Dr. D.S. Rana and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. being Scientists initially appointed against Projects and continued from time to time, complained of termination of their services and sought regularization. An order passed on 31.3.1997, contained the following directions: (1) The appointment of the applicants under the so called scheme in accordance with a contract, does not permit the respondents who have a duty to act fairly as a model employer, to terminate the services of applicants without giving an opportunity to the applicants to show cause why they should not be terminated. As such, the applicants are entitl...