Delhi Court May 2009 Judgments

Anil Vats Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant submits that he was appointed as Sorting Assistant on ad hoc basis in 1979 and regularized on 25.07.1980. When he was detained in a private criminal case on 28.07.1985 for a period exceeding 48 hours he was placed under deemed suspension from that date till 02.09.1985 when he was reinstated. In the meanwhile, he had been released on bail on 09.08.1985 but subsequently he was convicted by judgment dated 17.11.1997 of the Court of Hon’ble Addl. Session Judge Delhi. He was placed under suspension again from 18.11.1997. Upon filing an appeal before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi the sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal by interim order dated 08.12.1997. 2. The applicant was imposed the punishment of removal from service by the Disciplinary Authority Memo dated 27.06.2000 and his appeal was rejected on 26.03.2001. When the OA No. 1382/2001 filed before the Tribunal was still pending, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi p...

G. YeshaIn Vs. Union of India Through Secretary and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

(Oral) V.K. Bali, Chairman It is the case of the applicant that against promotion of his junior he made representation on 08.09.2008 and when he received no reply, he sought information under Right to Information Act whereby he came to know that his representation is under consideration. 2. Without going into the merits of this case, at this stage, we direct the Director General, National Test House, second respondent herein, to deal with the representation of the applicant dated 08.09.2008 (Annexure A) and pass orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 3. With the above directions, this Original Application stands disposed of....

Sumitra Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

V.K. Bali, Chairman Issue notice to the Respondents. Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA 1054/2008 in the matter of Anil Dahiya v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. and other connected matters decided on 15.09.2008. 3. Same directions are to be issued in this case as were issued in the cases referred to above. Ordered accordingly. Process Dasti....

Sh. Rajbir Singh Vs. the Union of India and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

N.D. Dayal, Member(A) The applicant, who retired from Defence Services in the rank of Havildar, was appointed as Clerk (LDC) on 06.05.1983 with retrospective effect from 01.06.1982. He was promoted as Assistant Store Keeper in 1986. It is pointed out that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Mohd. Aslam granted the status of Government Servants to the civilian employees of Unit Run Canteens (URC) and asked the Ministry of Defence to formulate terms and conditions of service for them. 2. The applicant is aggrieved that by order dated 26.02.2002 (Annexure A/1) his age of superannuation was considered as 58 years and accordingly he was ordered to be released from canteen service w.e.f. 30.04.2002 (AN). The applicant preferred a representation on 04.03.2002 and followed up with reminder claiming that his correct age of superannuation was 60 years and that he had been retired prematurely. It is stated that the authorities did not agree to this. The applicant als...

Santosh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Order (Oral) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Issue notice to the Respondents. Shri Vijay Pandita, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This case is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in OA 1054/2008 in the matter of Anil Dahiya v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. and other connected matters decided on 15.09.2008. 3. Same directions are to be issued in this case as were issued in the cases referred to above. Ordered accordingly. Process Dasti....

Chandrashehar Vs. Commissioner of Mcd, Town Hall and Others

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Meera Chhibber, Member(J). The Writ Petition No.1619/98 was filed by the applicants seeking direction to the respondents to appoint them to the post of Primary Teachers (page 5). It is submitted by the applicants that minimum qualification for Primary Teachers (General, Tamil and Urdu) are: (i) Higher Secondary Pass of Recognised Board/University with an Elective Subject in the Hindi, Urdu and Tamil Languages all the matric level and (ii) Two years Teachers Training Certificate (page 7). As the applicant fulfilled all the criteria, he was called for verification of his certificates vide letter dated 14.5.1997 (page 19). Applicants gave their certificates, yet they were not given appointment, therefore, they had no other option but to file the present writ petition which has now been transferred to the Tribunal vide order dated 22.1.2009 and has been numbered as TA-438/2009. 2. Counsel for the applicants submitted that during tendency of this Writ Petition, applicant no. 2 had already ...

R.K. Tripathi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary to Govt. of India a ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Order (Oral) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman Counsel, at this stage, limits his relief to the extent that direction be issued to the respondents only to re-consider applicants transfer to Guwahati when Mrs. Meera Dixit, who made a complaint against the applicant of outraging her modesty and on the basis of which the applicant is being departmentally tried, has withdrawn her complaint. The limited prayer made by the applicant, as mentioned above, needs to be accepted. It appears to this Tribunal that pending departmental enquiry on the allegations made by Mrs. Meera Dixit, the applicant has been transferred. He has a very limited time for superannuation. If Mrs. Meera Dixit may have actually withdrawn her complaint against the applicant, it would be for the respondents to reconsider his transfer to Guwahati. 2. In the circumstances, as mentioned above, we dispose of this Original Application with direction to the respondents to reconsider the transfer of the applicant to Guwahati, if it be...

Balbir Singh Vs. the State and anr.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009CriLJ3674; 160(2009)DLT575

Mool Chand Garg, J.1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the ASJ, dismissing the second revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. whereby he assailed the order passed by Magistrate dismissing his application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. after the deletion of charges under Section 504 IPC in case FIR No. 247/98 of P.S. Seema Puri.2. The charge sheet in this case was filed under Section 323/342/347/379/427/504 IPC. The Metropolitan Magistrate after hearing arguments on the question of charge deleted the offences under Section 347/379/427 IPC but directed the petitioner to face trial with respect to offences under Section 323/342/504 IPC. The petitioner then filed a revision petition under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. which was allowed in part and the offences under Section 504 IPC were also deleted.3. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application before the MM concerend under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure alleging that the challan filed...

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Vs. Bwl Ltd.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 160(2009)DLT489

O.P. Dwivedi, J. 1. The plaintiffs have filed suit for partition of immovable property No. A-44, Inder Puri, New Delhi, constructed over land admeasuring about 200 Sq.Yds. Briefly stated, the plaintiffs case is that the property in suit namely A-44, Inder Puri, New Delhi was owned by Sh. Shambhu Mal Gupta. Construction on the said plot was raised by Sh. Shambhu Mal Gupta in the year 1967-68. Shri Shambhu Mal Gupta had four sons namely Sh. R.M.Gupta (since deceased now represented by his LR s who are plaintiff Nos. 4 (a) to (c), Sh. M.M.Gupta, defendant No.1, Sh. Suresh Chand Gupta, plaintiff No.1, Sh. Mahesh Gupta, plaintiff No.2 and one daughter Smt. Raj Rani Garg who is plaintiff No. 3 in the suit. Sh. Shambhu Mal Gupta had been realizing rent from tenant. Defendant No. 1 had also admitted the ownership of Shri Shambhu Mal in respect of the said property. In this regard he had executed a Release Deed dated 11.2.71 declaring that he (defendant No.1) has no right, title or interest wha...

Grand Chemical Works Vs. the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fu ...

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2010)ILLJ131Del

Kailash Gambhir, J.1. By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 23/10/1998 passed by the respondent No. 1 in appeal against the order dated 23/6/1998 passed by the respondent no 2 under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and order dated 14.12.1998 on review application passed by respondent No. 1 and demand raised by respondent No. 2 on the basis of impugned order dated 23/6/1998.2. The brief conspectus of the facts as set out in the petition are as under:3. The present petitioner M/s Grand Chemical Works, C-21/2, Mayapuri, Ph.II, New Delhi-110064 was covered with effect from 30.04.1996 under scheduled head 'Heavy and fine Chemicals' vide EPF office establishment No. E/DL/17749/Coverage/1281 dated 5.6.1996. The establishment was directed to report compliance with effect from 1.5.96. Instead of reporting compliance, the establishment challenged the applicabi...