Delhi Court March 2007 Judgments

Dr. B.N. Mittal S/O Late Shri B.R. Vs. Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, a retired Deputy Director General (DDG) in the Directorate General of Health Services, has impugned Presidential order dated 29.7.2004, whereby on a disciplinary proceeding post retirement a penalty of 100% pension cut on permanent basis along with forfeiture of entire gratuity has been imposed upon him, under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.2. Applicant while working as DDG, retired on superannuation on 31.1.1998. As he was placed under deemed suspension before his superannuation, a deemed proceeding under Rule 9 (2) of the Pension Rules ibid was instituted against him, on the following allegations: STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST DR. B.N. MITTAL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL (LEPROSY), LATER DESIGNATED AS ADDL. DG, (SINCE RETIRED), DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, DELHI. Dr. B.N. Mittal, while working as Deputy Director General (Leprosy), later designated as Addl. DG (since retired), failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a ma...

Shri Siddharth Prakash Rastogi Vs. the Secretary Personnel, Union of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Validity of Office Memorandum dated 1st March, 2001 is assailed in present OA. Applicant also seeks direction to respondents to consider him for promotion to the post PGT against the quota for blind in terms of order dated 18th July, 2000 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1807/1999.2. Admitted facts are that applicant, a disabled blind, was appointed as TGT (History) in April, 1992. National Federation for the Blind and Anr. TGT filed OA No. 1807/1999 seeking quashing of all orders not continuing reservation to persons with disabilities in promotion from TGT to PGT/Lecturers to the extent of 3% distributed to the extent of 1% each for persons with visual impairment, hearing impairment and persons with locomotor disabilities in terms of Section 33 of The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Full Participation and Protection of Rights) Act, 1995. Said OA was disposed of vide order dated 19th July, 2000 with following observations: 8. This OA is therefore disposed of with a ...

Dr. Satya Pal (Vats), Lecturer in Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. The applicant holds a Doctorate, awarded to him during June, 1996.He had vast experience as a Lecturer in the Maharshi Dayanand University and had performed duties of Warden of Hostel in addition to his teaching job. Therefore, when the UPSC had advertised during June, 2005 for the post of Principal in Government Arts Science College at Chandigarh, as he sufficiently possessed the qualifications stipulated, he had responded.2. The prescribed qualification was Master's Degree with minimum 50% marks from a recognized University plus Ph.D or equivalent qualification. Ten years teaching/research experience in University/College was also a mandatory requirement. Inter alia, advertisement referred to the duty of the incumbent of imparting teaching to college students and administrative control of the college.3. Notwithstanding all these attainments the applicant followed, he had not been invited for the interview. The O.A. was filed at this point of time, praying that the respondent UPSC...

Pradeep Kumar Verma S/O Shri Ram Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicants, Lab Technicians on contract basis seek benefit of pay and allowances as admissible to regular employees with a further direction to place them in the minimum of the pay scale of Rs. 4,000-6,000, which has been allowed on revision to regular Lab Assistants.2. None appeared for applicants, even on the second call. We, therefore, proceed to decide the matter in terms of Rule 15 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987.3. In the OA it is contended that while performing the same duties when the pay scale of Lab Assistants has been revised to Rs. 4,000-6,000 from 1.5.2003, in OA-2157/2002 - Shashi Kala and Ors. v. Director of Health Services and Ors. decided on 24.9.2002, this Tribunal directed payment of salary as admissible to regular OTT, mutatis mutandis extends to the present case as well.State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia AIR 1989 SC 19, has been relied upon to invoke the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.5. On the other hand, learned Counsel app...

Mr. Anil Kumar, Additional Vs. the Union of India (Uoi), Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this order we are disposing off the above three OAs in which the applicants are aggrieved by the violation of Transfer/Placement Policy for Group 'A' Officers of the IRS, 2005. The applicants are officers of Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax).2. The matrix of facts in OA No. 1888 of 2006 (Sh. Anil Kumar) is as follows. Shri Anil Kumar joined the Department of Revenue as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 8.01.1989. By order number 82 of 2005, he was transferred from Ludhiana to Delhi to the Directorate of Organization and Management Services as a part of Annual General Transfer of 2005. He joined on 31.08.2005. By order Number 69 of 2006 dated 31.05.2006, he was again transferred to UP (East) as a part of Annual General Transfers of 2006. The order also included the following directive: 'All the officers mentioned above should be relieved on or before 09.06.2006 positively under intimation to the Board. The compliance reports regarding relieving/joining of above officers m...

Yogesh Yadav S/O Shri Jagdish Vs. Secretary, Ministry of

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant at present is working as Peon, in the Ministry of Non-Conventional Energy Sources at New Delhi. He had joined in the year 1995. A post of driver had fallen vacant in his department, which had been duly notified. Applicant had responded to the Notification, as he possessed the necessary qualifications. The Original Application was filed, when he came to know that in spite of an examination of his credentials, formal orders were not forthcoming and the vacancy was remaining unfilled. According to him, there was an effort to scuttle his candidature in order to give the benefit of appointment to other ineligible and undesirable candidates.2. The prayer in the application was that the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the applicant and further for a direction for appointing him in preference to outsiders or candidates called from Employment Exchange. Present application is seen to have been filed on 30.1.2006.3. We also notice that on 30.10.2006, the appli...

Anil Kumar Paswan S/O Shri S.N. Das Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this application, filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, validity of orders dated 17th February, 2004 inflicting penalty of reduction in his pay by one stage in the time scale of pay of Rs. 5500-175-9000/- for a period of one year with immediate effect, as modified and enhanced vide appellate authority's order dated 22nd March, 2005, after issuing show cause notice dated 28.01.2005, to reduction in his pay by two stages for a period of one year with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and on expiry of penalty period, the reduction would have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay, have been challenged.2. Admitted facts of the case are that applicant, ACIO-II/WT, while working as Immigration Clearing Officer at IGI Airport on the night intervening 1/2.12.2000, cleared one passenger, namely, Shri Tota Singh, who was leaving for Moscow on that night. A complaint was lodged by said passenger ...

Wimco Seedlings Ltd. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)293ITR216(Delhi)

1. Since there is difference of opinion between the Member in the captioned appeal, the following question is referred to Hon'ble president of Tribunal under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Whether on facts and in law, the Head Office expenses or any other common indirect expenses can be apportioned vis-a-vis the business activity and the agricultural activity carried on by the assessee.(R.S. Syal) (K.C.Singhal)Accountant Member Judicial Member 1.The issue arising out of this appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 5,84,113/- on, account of inflated agricultural income which was further enhanced to Rs. 16, 78,905/- by the CIT(A).2. The assessee company is engaged mainly in the business of providing (con?)field of agriculture forestry plants and the services provided to M/s Wimco Ltd. under the terms of an agreement dated 1.9.84. The main object of the asseasee company is to provide research and development facility to Wimco Ltd., However, it is also carrying on agricultural ...

Asian Diet Products Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)111TTJ(Delhi)51

1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), dt. 15th May, 2006 for the asst. yr. 1999-2000, in the matter of order passed under Section 143(3) of the IT Act, 1961 wherein following two grounds of appeal have been raised: 1. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of learned AO in passing order under Section 154 moreso when there was no error apparent from record. 2. In any view of the matter and in any case, the order passed by learned CIT(A) upholding the order of the learned AO is illegal, bad in law, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 3. That the assessee craves its leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.2. Rival contentions have been heard and record perused. In this case, AO invoked the provisions of Section 154 of the Act so...

Snc-lavalin/Acres Inc. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)110TTJ(Delhi)13

1. These cross-appeals by assessee and Revenue are directed against order of learned CIT(A), Palampur, dt. 22nd Nov., 2004.2. The appellant is a Canadian company incorporated under Canadian law and having its registered office at Canada, incorporated under Canada Business Corporation Act, and is liable to tax in Canada. It is a joint venture company which has been incorporated only for the execution of Chamera Hydro Electric Project--Stage II in India. Two companies namely, SNC Lavalin Inc., and ACRE Inc. have come together in the joint venture to form the appellant company. The appellant company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of SNC Lavalin Inc., which in turn is a wholly owned subsidiary of the principal holding company SNC Lavalin Group Inc. The status of the appellant under the IT Act, 1961 is that of a non-resident. The appellant company together with JP Industries Ltd. was awarded a contract by National Hydro Electrical Power Corporation, Faridabad (NHPC), Haryana, on 18th July, 1...