Delhi Court July 2008 Judgments

Soran Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(106)DRJ295; [2008(119)FLR769]; (2009)ILLJ700Del

ORDER1. Admit.2. Mr. Singh, learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent.3. By consent of the parties appeal is taken up for hearing.4. This appeal by the workman is directed against the judgment dated 12th October 2006 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 13260 of 2004 whereby the Award of the Tribunal directing reinstatement of the respondent/workman with 50% wages and other consequential benefits was set aside.5. A large number of casual labourers (monthly rated) joined the Railways under a scheme of regularization. In March 1984 a racket was detected by the Vigilance branch of the Railways. It was reported that some persons had been employed on the basis of bogus or forged casual labour cards. A letter dated 18th October, 1985 was written by Central Railways, Headquarters Office, Personnel Branch to serve notice and seek explanation from the persons found to have entered service by fraudulent means. The said letter read as under:Sub: Termination of Casual Labou...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Satish Kumar

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008ACJ515

Rekha Sharma, J.1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Principal Bench of Railway Claims Tribunal dated 18.2.2008. By virtue of the impugned order the respondent herein was awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000 along with interest thereon at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of order till actual payment, for the injuries sustained by him in an untoward incident, which occurred on 16.6.2004 involving the train 'Amritsar Express'.2. It so happened that on 16.6.2004 the respondent boarded Amritsar Express train from Panipat bound for Delhi. When the train reached Sadar Bazar Railway Station the respondent who due to heavy rush was standing on the doorway got pushed by other passengers and consequently fell out of the moving locomotive. It is not in dispute that the respondent was a bona fide passenger. It is also not in dispute that because of fall from the train he suffered severe injuries resulting in amputation of his left leg. What has been dispute...

Satish Kumar S/O Sh. Ranvir Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Satish Kumar, Constable in Delhi Police, applicant herein, through present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 calls in question result of Promotion List-A Examination, 2007 declared on 25.01.2008 insofar as the same pertains to him. In wake of setting aside of the result to the extent it pertains to the applicant, he seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to declare him pass and send him for lower school course training in Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, but inasmuch as, for his passing the test for promotion it is necessary for him to challenge order dated 16.08.2002 vide which he was inflicted the punishment of censure, he questions the said order as well.2. Brief facts, as set out in the Application, reveal that the applicant joined Delhi Police as Constable on 01.01.1993. It is his case that while temporarily posted in E-Block Security Line, he proceeded on 30 days earned leave and was due to join hi...

Shri R.J. Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By this OA applicant has challenged order dated 16.1.2008 (page 8) whereby his request for conversion of Earned Leave from 5.8.2002 to 6.9.2002 into commuted leave has been rejected on following grounds: (a) The officer's request was received after 5 years whereas the request should have been received within 30 days from the date of joining duty in accordance with Rule 10 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. (b) The officer has not produced a medical certificate from the competent authority which is the pre-requisite for grant of commuted leave under Rule 30 of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972. (C) Since the officer is not able to even comply with the minimum procedural requirements under relevant rule, the question of relaxation of rules does not arise. (d) Conversion of leave into another kind just for the sake of accumulating more E.L. for encashment purpose at the time of retirement does not qualify for relaxation of rules.2. I am, therefore, directed to inform you that your request has not acco...

Shri S.M. Gupta, Senior Lab Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. S.M. Gupta, Lab Technician, presently employed with second respondent-Safdarjung Hospital, has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking direction to be issued to the respondents to count service rendered by him at All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short, AIIMS) and accordingly grant him first financial upgradation w.e.f. 08.09.1999 and second financial upgration w.e.f. 08.10.2004 under Assured Career Progression Scheme (for short, ACPS), with all consequential benefits.2. Brief facts, as set out in the Application, reveal that the applicant was appointed as Laboratory Technician at AIIMS, New Delhi in 'Post Mortem Project' financed by Delhi Administration initially on temporary basis and was regularized in June, 1979. It is the case of the applicant that 'Post Mortem Project' at AIIMS was partly transferred to Safdarjung Hospital but AIIMS Administration instead of transferring the services of the applicant and...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Indra Devi W/O Late Sh. Ratan Singh an ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009ACJ2120

V.B. Gupta, J.1. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as the 'Act') has been filed by National Insurance Co. Ltd. against the Interim Award passed dated 05.07.07, by Sh. Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short as 'Tribunal'), Delhi.2. Brief facts of the case are that Sh. Rattan Singh, aged 44 years died in a road accident on 20th October 2006 while travelling in vehicle No. HR 38-M6385 (Tata 407), along with other farmers of the village. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle.3. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased.4. Respondent No. 7 is the driver, Respondent No. 8 is the owner and Respondent No. 9 (in whose name the vehicle is insured). Respondent No. 7, the driver in its written statement pleaded that the accident took place on account of the negligence of one motor cycle rider who suddenly appeared in front of the vehicle ...

Government of India Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Vs. Acome and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: AIR2009Delhi102; 2008(4)ARBLR418(Delhi)

CM No. 9426/2007(Delay)For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal stands condoned. The application is disposed of.FAO(OS)248/2007 & CM 9425/20071. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both parties. 2. The short question which falls for our consideration in this appeal is whether the petition filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the Act) was barred by limitation.3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this appeal it is necessary to give facts. The appellant, then Department of Telecommunications and now Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, placed two purchase orders both dated 1st June, 1988 for supply of PIJF cables for Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited on the respondent M/s. ACOME. Dispute arose between the parties as according to the appellant some of the supplies were defective while the respondent maintained that the supplies were good and were in fact utilized by the appellant....

Shyam Vs. State Nct of Delhi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2008(105)DRJ156

Anil Kumar, J.1. This is a petition under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of bail in FIR No. 62/2008, P.S. Lodhi Colony, under Section 365 IPC. Petitioner is in custody since 24th March, 2008.2. Some of the relevant facts as per the first information report are that Ms. Sweta Chauhan aged 23 years, daughter of Sh. M.L. Chauhan is alleged to have gone to IILM for her MBA class on 10th March, 2008 and was not found in the evening on the same day when her brother went to pick her up. Her mobile phone was also found to be switched off. The allegation made is that one Mukul Bhadana @ Sonu, r/o.Village Kotla Mubarakpur may have abducted her and confined her at secret location.3. It is alleged that on the intervening night of 12th/13th April, 2008 the father and brother of the girl accompanied by 8-10 persons had found the girl Shweta Chauhan and Mukul Bhadana at a village in 24, Pargana, North Bengal and had taken them from there. On 13th April, 2008, Mukul Bhadana' was ...

Tej Pal Singh S/O Shri Om Prakash Vs. Union of India (Uoi) (Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Tej Pal Singh, Assistant Director (Crops) Group 'B', Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, applicant herein, through present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash seniority lists and orders dated 02.04.1991, 03.12.1996, 02.06.2004, 15.06.2004, 14.01.2005, 17.03.2006, 19.09.2006 and 05.09.2007 to the extent of denial of correct determination of seniority and promotion over and above respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and consequently to direct respondent No. 1 to issue correct seniority list of Senior Technical Assistants (STAs) Group 'B' showing the applicant senior to respondent Nos. 2 to 8 and grant regular promotion as Assistant Director (Crops) from the date of their promotion (17.03.2006) with all consequential benefits.2. Brief facts, as set out in the Application, reveal that the applicant was appointed as STA (Crops) Group 'B' non-gazetted non-ministerial cadre in the pa...

Jai Prakash, Ex. Fa(Gd) Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. Jai Prakash, the applicant herein, employed as Field Assistant (GD) with the respondents has been removed from service by the Joint Secretary (Pers) and disciplinary authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 15(4) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965), vide order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure A-1). Appeal carried by the applicant against the order aforesaid has since been dismissed by the Special Secretary (R) and appellate authority vide order dated 6.11.2007 (Annexure A-2). These are the two orders which have been challenged in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. The facts as may be culled out from the pleadings on record reveal that the applicant was proceeded against departmentally for remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty for the period from 21.8.2006 to 21.9.2006 and again with effect from 25.9.2006. He was ser...