Delhi Court April 2007 Judgments

Rosy Aggarwal W/O Sh. Rajeev Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. At the outset, learned Counsel appearing for applicants in the light of the Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. , has not pressed relief regarding regularizing services of applicants.However, what is claimed is admissible allowance of increments, GPF, bonus, medical, nursing allowance, LTC, OTA, leave and Radiation allowance at par with regular employees. Accordingly, learned Counsel has prayed for deletion of relief prayed for in paragraph 8.2 of the OA.2. Applicants have been working as paramedical staff as OT Technicians, Senior Radiographers, Dieticians etc. in Maharishi Balmiki Hospital run by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi for the last more than four years.3. Learned Counsel of applicants contended that applicants have been appointed against regular sanctioned posts and as per the appointment though they have been subjected to be appointed on contract basis, yet they have been shown...

Ex. Constable Ajayvir Gulia S/O Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant challenges impugned order dated 27.04.2005 inflicting upon him a penalty of dismissal, as upheld by appellate authority's order dated 14.07.2005. Reinstatement with all consequential benefits along with interest and costs is also sought.2. Admitted facts are that applicant, who joined as Constable, Delhi Police in 1990, was involved in a criminal case vide FIR No. 1065/2002 dated 04.12.2002 under Sections 376/342/506/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 Arms Act at Police Station Nangloi. He was taken into custody on 05.12.2002.Allegations against him had been that he raped one Ms. 'S'. He was arrested and got medically examined from Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital. He had also been identified by the complainant. After completion of investigation Challan was prepared and sent to concerned Court for trial.3. The Court of Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, examined the complainant on 09.09.2003 and as she did not identify the accused, and noticing that she was the only star witness of...

Shri Satnam Singh S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Applicant, who has retired on superannuation on 30.9.2005, by virtue of this OA has sought a directive to accord all consequential benefits to him, as disciplinary proceedings have been deemed as dropped, as per the directions of this Tribunal.2. Applicant, a member of Indian Administrative Service was promoted as Senior Scale Officer in 1980 and Junior Administrative Grade (JAG) on 11.10.1987. A chargesheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was issued on 5.5.1992 wherein it was alleged that applicant preferred a false TTA claim. On account of failure to supply additional documents a major penalty when inflicted upon applicant was challenged in OA-34/2003, which was allowed, however with liberty to respondents to resume the proceedings from an appropriate stage. As the proceedings had taken time with inordinate delay, it led to filing of OA-3049/2004, wherein an order passed on 23.12.2004 directed respondents to complete the enquiry preferably within six months, subject to...

Ex. Constable Rajender Kumar S/O Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D. Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Ex. Constable Rajender Kumar, the applicant herein, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging an order dated 13.1.2004 (Annexure A/3). He has also challenged the orders dated 17.11.2004 and 21.7.2005 (Annexures A/1 and A/2 respectively) and in consequence to setting aside of the orders aforesaid, he seeks direction to the respondents to re-instate him in service with all consequential benefits.2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the applicant was appointed as a Constable in Delhi Police in 1995 and as per his version was having satisfactory service record. He was dealt with departmentally on the allegation of being wilfully and unauthorizedly absent from duty on four different occasions. It is the case of the applicant that he never absented from duty on his own sweet will and it was the mitigating circumstances due to his illness, for which he could not be blamed. The illness is a factor, which is beyond h...

Shri B.D. Garg S/O L. Shri Hukam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of impugned orders dated 18.05.2004 (Annexure A-2) and 13.04.2006 (Annexure A-1) with a direction to the respondents to grant proforma/officiating promotion to the applicant in the grade of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices w.e.f. 23.09.1985 under the Next Below Rule (NBR, for short) in the ratio of the order of this Tribunal in the case of Hetram v. Union of India and Ors. OA No.2474/2002 decided on 02.01.2003 (Annexure A-11).2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined service as Postal Assistant on 03.09.1962. He was sent on deputation to Army Postal Service (APS, for short) w.e.f. 25.05.1965 and, while on deputation, he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on 28.03.1988 under the Next Below Rule. He was repatriated to his parent cadre on 14.04.1994 and later superannuated on 31.10.2002.3. The applicant has stated that he came to know that while he was on deputation to APS, ...

Welcure Drugs and Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(117)ECC446

1. All these appeals are arising out of common order in appeal and therefore all are taken up for hearing together for disposal.2. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that the appellant company are engaged in the manufacture of medicines falling under heading No. 30.03 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and availing facility of modvat credit. On 19.5.1998, the Central Excise Officers seized a truck alongwith bulk drug. The Driver could not produce the duty paying documents. However, on verification the bulk drug found to be duty paid. The officers had got photocopies of invoices, which did not tally with the respective invoices kept in the invoice book of the appellant. The said photocopies of invoices are known as parallel invoices. The appellant No. 4 Shri Dharmendra Singh, Stores Executive and Authorised Signatory of the appellant company in his statement dated 19.5.98 accepted that the excisable goods were cleared without payment of duty under the cover...

Royal Foundry and Engg. Works Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2007)(118)ECC507

1. The appellant filed this appeal against the redemption fine of Rs. 15,000/- and penalty of Rs. 19,000/-.2. The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture of engine parts classifiable under Chapter 85 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. The appellants are exempted from payment of duty vide exemption Notification No. 8/2002 dated 1.3.2002. On 3.1.2003, the central excise officers visited the factory premises of the appellants and found the finished goods outside the factory premises without cover of any bill or invoice. The adjudicating authority dropped the proceedings. The department filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) confiscated the seized goods; and imposed redemption fine and penalty.4. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, it is revealed from the impugned order that during the material period, the appellant's clearance values were within the exemption limit. As such, no d...

Pankaj P. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. These appeals are directed against the penalties imposed on the appellants under Customs adjudication order dated 27-11-2001. The penalties in question are Rs. 20 lakhs on Pankaj P. Shah and Rs. 5 lakhs on Ashok P. Shah. The appeal of Pankaj P. Shah also seeks return of Rs. 3 crores paid towards Customs duty during the investigation of the case.2. The findings relating to the present appellants are in paragraphs 35 & 36 of the order. They may be noted: 35. Shri Pankaj P. Shah, Managing Director of M/s P.G. Foils Ltd., admitted that he helped Shri Rajesh Jain who was in financial difficulty instructed staff to assist in import of goods and selling in domestic market without bill. He has pleaded that it was a loan, therefore, by selling he wanted to recover loan. He told his staff namely Shri Pradeep Arora and other to help in import and selling of goods. He knew that goods are such that there cannot be sold that perhaps was the reason to sell without bill. He sold through broker...

D.K. Mohapatra S/O Shri Jagannath Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Declare that the service rendered by the applicant as Executive Engineer (Civil) [EE (C), for short] in the scale of Rs. 10000-325-15200 in the Border Roads Organisation (BRO, for short) since 16.11.1998 shall count as qualifying service for the purposes of further promotion in the present service held by the applicant in the Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways (MSRT&H, for short). Direct the respondents to consider the applicant for promotion as Superintending Engineer (SE, for short) w.e.f. 15.11.2003 and to promote him as such with all consequential benefits if found fit by the DPC.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant initially joined as Assistant Executive Engineer in BRO under the MSRT&H (respondent No.1) on 11.08.1998. The applicant was then promoted as EE(C) w.e.f.16.11.1998. Vide Advertisement No. 18 in the Employment News dated 22-28 September 2001, Union Public Service Commission (UPSC, for short) advertised 30 posts of EE(C) in the M...

Ravinder Singh S/O Sh. Shripal Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. In this OA the applicants have sought quashing and setting aside of the impugned order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure A-1) with a direction to the respondents to provide promotional avenues to the applicants, in the existing hierarchy, to the post of Laboratory Assistants.2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants are working as Laboratory Attendants (Group 'D' post) in the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL, for short) of the Government of N.C.T. of Delhi (respondent No. 4) in the pay scale of Rs. 2650-4000. The next higher post in FSL is that of Laboratory Assistant (Group `C' post), the Recruitment Rules (RRs, for short) of which provide the method of recruitment as: `by direct recruitment failing which by transfer/transfer on deputation'. The essential qualifications prescribed for the post is `B.Sc. with Physics/Mathematics/Chemistry/Botany/Geology from a recognized University or equivalent', whereas the educational qualification prescribed for the Laboratory Attendants ...