Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Smt. Raj Rani Vs. Guru Teg Bahadur Hosp.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 139(2007)DLT701; [2007(114)FLR126]

Rekha Sharma, J.1. The petitioner, Smt. Raj Rani, has preferred this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Labour Court No. XII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in ID No. 237/2004 dated 13.4.2005.2. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she was engaged by the respondent namely, Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital, as Nursing Orderly with effect from 20.1.1989 on casual/daily rated/muster roll basis and was being paid wages under the Minimum Wages Act. The appointment of the petitioner was made against a leave vacancy and her services were terminated after about four months on 14.4.1989.3. According to the petitioner, she was liable to be continued in service as before passing the order of termination, the Management failed to comply with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. She thereforee raised an industrial dispute which came to be adjudicated upon by Labour Court No. XII, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. The said Court vide order dated 11.3.2002 held that the...

Smt. Bindu Mehra Vs. Sushil Kumar Mehra

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ3455; 139(2007)DLT222; 2007(95)DRJ404

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.1. The present application is preferred by the wife (hereinafter referred to as Applicant) under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the husband (herein after referred to as 'respondent') by this Court in an order dated 16.5.2006, in Bail application No. 542/2006. 2. The applicant married the respondent on 20.7.94 and a daughter was born out of the wedlock. She alleged that the Respondent harassed her for dowry; and treated cruelly, in order to get his illegal demands fulfillled, ever since the inception of marriage. The applicant also alleged that she was unable to bear the torture and was constrained to file a compliant against the respondent alleging commission of offences under Sections 406/498A/34 IPC. 3. The applicant allege that she is living alone with her 7-year-old daughter ever since the Respondent has left their company. She alleges that the Respondent tried to kidnap the child on 29.7.200...

Billu Tech. Video Communications Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)10STJ37CESTATNew(Delhi)

1. Applicant filed this application for condoning the delay of 25 days.In view of the given the explanation, the application of condonation of delay is allowed. Applicant filed this application for waiver of amount of service tax of Rs. 1,38,369/- and penalties. Applicant had already deposited an amount of Rs. 64,500/-.2. The applicants are not disputing the liability of service tax, however, the contention of applicant is that they are only providing service to 310 customers, whereas, as per the case of revenue, the applicants were providing the service to 410 customers. Keeping in view, the facts and circumstances of the case and we find that it is not a case for waiver of pre-deposit of amount of service tax.Applicant are directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 50,000/- within a period of six weeks from today and report compliance on 3^rd May 2007 and pre-deposit of duty are waived....

K.C. Lohani S/O Late Shri Nand Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Shri K.C. Lohani and another have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash order dated 3.8.2005 passed by the office of Joint Secretary (Training) and Chief Administrative Officer, Ministry of Defence, second respondent herein and also to grant monetary benefits w.e.f.21.8.2000, the date from which their junior Shri B.S. Kalsy was given in situ promotion.2. The bare minimum facts, which need necessary mention, reveal that the applicants belong to Armed Forces Headquarters Stenographers Service. On 20.8.1999, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DOP&T) introduced a Scheme of in situ promotion for Under Secretaries, Section Officers and Private Secretaries to the rank of Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary and Principal Private Secretary, respectively in Central Secretariat Service. Following the guidelines of DOP&T, Ministry of Defence issued a letter dated 21.8.2000 and introduced in situ p...

Ashish Bahad S/O Sh. R.P. Bahad Vs. National Council of Educational

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, by virtue of this OA, has assailed his non-consideration as an OBC for age relaxation with all eligibility criteria fulfilled for the post of Assistant Public Relation Officer (APRO) and Public Relation Officer (PRO) notified under general category.2. Applicant states that being an OBC candidate and as a Government servant on deputation to NCERT from Institution of Physically Handicapped under the Ministry of Social Justice he has acquired more than 11 years' experience in the media, which is requisite for his consideration to the post of APRO and PRO as well, it is stated that he is entitled for relaxation of age by three years and has relied upon the DoP&T OM of 15.10.1987.3. Learned Counsel of applicant would contend, by placing reliance on a decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Madras in A.Ganesan v. Union of India and Ors. 2006 (3) ATJ 420, that as reservation and concessions are two different concepts, on a vacancy meant for open category, age r...

Shri H.S. Matharoo Son of Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this OA, applicants have sought a direction to extend to them the decision of the High Court in CW-1212/99 entitled Union of India and Ors. v. B.N. Sharma and Ors. decided on 10.1.2002 and also the decision of the Tribunal in R.K. Sharma and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (OA-553/2003) decided on 18.12.2003 and other similar OAs and to accord the pay scale of DPA Grade B (Rs. 2000-3200) and Programmer (Rs. 2375-3500) from 1.1.1986.2. The only contest on behalf of the respondents is that the Government of India has not issued any general order to extend the benefit of the decisions, referred to above, to the non-applicants.3. Though learned Counsel for respondents vehemently opposed the contentions and argued that the applicants are not entitled to the relief, we are of the considered view that once the issue has attained finality and the applicants are identically situated, they are also entitled to the benefits of the decision in B.N. Sharma's case (supra).4. In this...

Jeet Ram S/O Shri Rijak Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. By virtue of this OA, applicant impugns respondents' orders dated 14.9.1989 imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service and dated 9.1.1995 whereby on appeal, the punishment of removal has been set aside and modified to censure by treating the period of suspension as spent on duty but the interregnum from 14.9.1989 to 18.4.1995 as not spent on duty for pay and allowances on the principle of 'no work no pay'. An orders passed on 21.1.2002, 29.12.2003 and 16.8.2004 whereby the request of the applicant for treating the period for pay and allowances has been turned down, are also being assailed.3. Applicant, who retired on superannuation, has a long history of litigation whereby on infliction of a penalty of removal from service for remaining unauthorizedly absence from 10.9.1982 to 17.10.1982 and also abusing the senior officers on 11.10.1982, a major penalty of removal when assailed in appeal, the appellate authority taking cognizance of the fact that the inquiry report has no...

Mrs. Usha Kumari W/O Shri O Kutty Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. As the issue in both the OAs is identical and founded almost on similar facts, these are being disposed of by this common order.3. By virtue of these OAs, applicants have assailed show cause notice issued to them as per the conditions of service in appointment letters as to the cancellation of their appointment on the ground that their caste as OBC has not been included both in the State as well as in the Centre lists.4. Learned Counsel for applicants would contend that in the decision of the Apex Court in S. Pushpa v. Sivashanmugavelu wherein it has been held to be made applicable the policy of Central Government, which says that for Central Government posts every SC/ST, irrespective of the State, is eligible.5. Learned Counsel for applicants would rely upon the OM dated 8.4.1994 issued by the Ministry of Welfare to contend that in the matter of reservation to the OBC on migration from one State/UT to another State/UT where the caste is not in the OBC list, the applicants are enti...

Shri B.K. Tiwary S/O Late Sh. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who has retired as a Deputy Adviser from Planning Commission in a Group 'A' post, has impugned respondents' order dated 26.3.2004, whereby his request for grant of benefits under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme, as an isolated post held by him, has been turned down. He seeks grant of pay scale of Rs. 14,300-18,300, as a financial upgradation, under the ACP Scheme w.e.f. 9.8.1999, with all consequential benefits.2. Applicant, who joined as a Deputy Adviser (Fertilizer) with a background of B. Tech in Chemical Engineering and M. Tech as well, had applied from time to time to other disciplines under the Planning Commission (Joint Adviser Recruitment (Amendment) Rules, yet against the discipline of applicant in his cadre as there is no promotional avenue, being an isolated post, as per paragraph 3.1 of the ACP Scheme of 9.8.1999 it is contended that applicant is entitled to the benefit of upgradation under the ACP Scheme. The decision of the DoP&T to deny as ...

Ajay Kumar Gupta, Senior Tax Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought expunging of adverse remarks, recorded by the Reporting Authority, which were later confirmed by the Reviewing Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, by quashing the impugned orders dated 07.04.2003 (Annexure A-1) and 08.04.2005 (Annexure A-2) respectively, with all consequential benefits.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working on the post of Senior Tax Assistant (STA, for short) with the respondents, when, by impugned order dated 07.04.2003, he was intimated the recording of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR, for short) for the year 2001-02, as follows: Report of Shri Ajay Kumar, Gupta, Sr. Tax Assistant for the F.Y. 2001-02, regarding. I have been informed today by the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut to communicate the following adverse remarks of the reporting officer against column number 23 which read as, 'He lacks official decorum' in your Annual Confidential Report for ...