Delhi Court November 2011 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
G.S. Shivaswamy and Others Vs. Government of India Through Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(ORAL) : V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Shri B. S. Billoria, Learned Counsel for the applicants, in view of Para 5.2, 5.6 and 6 of the reply filed on behalf of Union of India and the written statement filed on behalf of UPSC, where it is stated that the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to be followed, counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this OA. Ordered accordingly....
Brij Mohan Verma Vs. the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Co ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
SHRI M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed this review application for reviewing the order dated 19.9.2011 whereby the OA of the applicant was dismissed in limine on the ground that the relief regarding payment of full salary to the applicant for the periods w.e.f. 9.1.2004 to 27.2.2004 and 8.8.2008 to 16.9.2008 cannot be granted being a time barred case, as no application for condonation of delay was filed. Also that the applicant has not availed of a statutory remedy by way of appeal as such in the light of the Constitution Bench decision rendered by the Apex Court in S.S. Rathore v. State of M.P., AIR 1990 SC 10, the OA was not found maintainable. 2. It was further held by the Tribunal that the applicant is not entitled to fully salary for the aforesaid periods, as the disciplinary proceeding against the applicant has not been concluded and how the period of absence has to be regulated will depend upon the ultimate result of the disciplinary proceedings. It was under ...
Satya Vir Singh Vs. the Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
Shri A.K. Bhardwaj: 1. Applicant, who is working with Delhi Transport Corporation as Driver since 1980, has filed present Original Application seeking issuance of direction against respondents for removing anomalous situation in the basic pay drawn by him and his junior Shri Virender Singh. Comparative chart of fixation of pay of applicant and Shri Virender Singh given by the respondents in paragraph 5.2 of their reply is extracted hereinbelow:- Particulars of band of pay scale Satya Vir Singh Driver Shri Virender Singh Driver bath No.9763 20.9.1980 (date of joining of Satya Vir) 8.7.1981 (date of joining of Virender Singh) Daily Wages rate of Rs.14.50 per day Daily Wages rate of Rs.14.50 per day 20.3.1982 (date of fixation pay scale of Satya Vir) 8.1.1982 (date of fixation pay scale of Virender Singh) Rs.290 per month Rs.290 per month 12.8.2002 Grant of Ist ACP Pay fixed at Rs.5100/- pm Grant of Ist ACP Pay fixed at Rs.5100/- pm 19.3.2005 Grant of Second ACP Pay fixed at Rs.5500/- pm ...
Sub Inspector Har Saroop Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Police, New Del ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(ORAL) M.L. Chauhan: 1. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that although he has been reinstated in service but the interregnum period during which he remained under suspension and further the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement has not been regularized by the respondents. 2. Learned counsel for applicant has further stated that the applicant has also supplied a copy of the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to the respondents, still they have not regularized the aforesaid period. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant at the admission stage and we are of the view that the present OA can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass appropriate orders in respect of the period during which the applicant remained under suspension and the period from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 4. In view of what ...
All India Postal Stenographers Association Through Its President, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(ORAL) SHRI SHAILENDRA PandEY, MEMBER (A): 1. After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicants states that he will be filing the representation with the respondents within a week and then agitate the applicants grievances further in accordance with law. 2. The RA is disposed of accordingly....
Gyan Chand Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council Through Its Chairman Palika ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
Shri A.K. Bhardwaj: 1. As is provided under Rule 10 (2) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 (for short “Rules 1965”), a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours. For easy reference, aforesaid rule is extracted hereinbelow:- “(2)a Government servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by an order of Appointing Authority- (a) with effect from the date of his detention, if he is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours; (b)with effect from the date of his conviction, if, in the event of a conviction for an offence, he is sentenced to a term of imprisonment exceeding forty-eight hours and is not forthwith dismissed or removed or compulsorily retired consequent to such conviction.R...
Jagdish Kalra Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(ORAL) Shri M.L. Chauhan: 1. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that though no departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against him but still he has not been granted ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioner whereas persons junior to him have been promoted. The applicant has further submitted that a person against whom the vigilance case is pending has also been granted promotion. For that purpose, the applicant has made representations dated 14.12.2010 Annexure A-5 and dated 7.1.2011 Annexure A-7, which are still pending. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for applicant at admission stage and we are of the view that present OA can be disposed of at this stage with a direction to respondent No.4 to decide the aforesaid representations of the applicant at Annexures A-5 and A-7 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 3. In view of what has been stated above, the OA is dispos...
Bharpai Sehrawat, Tgt (Physical Education), New Delhi and Another Vs. ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(ORAL) Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The first applicant in this case, Smt. Bharpai Sehrawat was appointed as a TGT Physical Education w.e.f. 30.3.1993. The second applicant was appointed similarly w.e.f. 15.9.1994. Both of them had post-graduate qualification even at the time of joining as TGTs. Under the existing recruitment rules they are entitled to be considered for appointment as PGTs after five years of service. The respondents have been making promotions to the post of PGTs as per the existing seniority list (Annexure A-4). The applicants’ names appears at Sl. No. 902 and 931 respectively. Their grievance is that the respondents have convened the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC, for short) on 13.10.2006 and promoted their juniors at Sl. No.904, 925 and 937 of the seniority list. When the applicants came to know about their promotion, they have made their representations dated 6.11.2006 and 26.11.2006 respectively. Even though the respondents have convened t...
Dr. Mithilesh Swami Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Dr. Mithilesh Swami, the applicant herein, through present Original Application filed by her under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks to quash and set aside order dated 04.08.2011 (Annexure A-1), vide which her case for automatic re-employment after retirement, pursuant to directions issued by this Tribunal, has been rejected. In consequence of setting aside the order aforesaid, the applicant obviously seeks direction to be issued to the respondents to give her all benefits, like salary, seniority etc. 2. Notice in this case was issued on 28.09.2011 for 21.10.2011. No one appeared on behalf of the respondents despite service on the date aforesaid, but on our asking, Ms. Harvinder Oberoi accepted notice and sought time to have instructions in the matter. The case was adjourned to 24.10.2011, on which date again, enabling the counsel defending the respondents to have instructions in the matter, it was adjourned to 31.10.2011. No reply has ...
Shri Devendra Prasad Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, M/O Fin ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-03-2011
(By circulation) SHRI M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed this review application for reviewing the order dated 26.8.2011. The review is sought on the ground that the observations made by this Tribunal in the earlier OA-1808/2009 and in MA-622/2010, which MA was moved in the nature of executive petition whereby the direction given by this Tribunal to reconsider the case of the applicant again and pass reasoned and speaking order, have not been taken note of while upholding the impugned order whereby the case of the applicant was considered pursuant to the aforesaid directions and rejected. Thus, in the garb of review application, the applicant wants rehearing of the matter again, which is not permissible. This Tribunal has upheld the validity of the impugned order dated 1.7.2010 and it has been specifically observed that the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief and in exercise of our power of judicial review it is not permissible for us to substitute the finding...
- ‹ Prev
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- Next ›
- Last »