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.
Sohan Lal Gupta and Another Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. The applicants are seeking directions to the Respondents to promote them to the grade of Chief Research Officer (CRO) under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (FCS) with effect from June 1995, when they completed five years in the grade of Senior Research Officer (SRO) and became eligible for promotion to the higher grade and not from 11.10.2006 when they were actually promoted. They are seeking the benefit of the judgment dated 9.07.2009 in OA number 1810/2007, in which the similarly placed applicants were given the relief, which the applicants herein are seeking in this OA. Their representation in this regard has been rejected by the Respondents by the impugned order dated 19.11.2008 and 12.2.2010 on the ground that benefit of the aforesaid judgment in OA No.1810/2007 cannot be given to them because the were not a party in that OA. The applicants have come to the Tribunal with following relief(s): “(A)Allow this Original Application of th...
Devender Singh Yadav Vs. India Trade Promotion Organisation Through th ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. When attention of the learned counsel for the applicant was drawn to the fact that so long as promotion order whereby respondents no.2 and 3 were promoted from back date is not challenged, the seniority list which has been assigned to private respondents based on such promotion order can not be quashed, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this TA with liberty reserve to him to challenge the promotion order whereby respondents no.2 and 3 were granted promotion in the year 1980, on all permissible grounds including the grounds raised in this TA. 2. In view of what has been stated above, the applicant is permitted to withdraw this TA in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that the period during which the present matter remained pending before Hon’ble High Court/Tribunal will constitute a valid ground to condone the delay. TA shall stand disposed of accordingly....
Daryao Singh Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Commissioner D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. Applicant in this TA had filed Civil Suit No.308/1997 before the Court of Civil Judge, Delhi, thereby praying that decree of mandatory injunction may be passed in favour of applicant/plaintiff and against the defendant, thereby directing the defendant to promote the plaintiff as UDC with full benefits, including back wages w.e.f. 10.1.1996. The relief was sought on the premise that applicant has been in the service of the defendant as junior clerk-cum-cashier since 13.12.1983. It was further pleaded that he was initially employed as peon and later on promoted to the post of LDC-cum-Cashier vide circular No.F-5/7/88-CED(C)/456 dated 5.12.1988. Copies of appointment letter as cashier-cum-clerk and that of promotion circular have been exhibited as PW-1/1 and PW-1/2 respectively. It is further pleaded that since the applicant was not promoted to the next post he filed a suit for declaration of mandatory injunction. However, during the pendency of the suit t...
Central Government Sag (S-29) Pensionersand#8217; Association Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
HON’BLE MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. By this common order we propose to dispose of four connected Original Applications, as the issues involved in all are same, as is also suggested by the learned counsel representing the parties. Pleadings to the extent the same may be required to be mentioned are, however, extracted from OA No.655/2010 in the matter of Central Government SAG (S-29) Pensioners’ Association and another v. Union of India and Others. 2. Applicants, who are pre-2006 retirees, are claiming pension at par with post-2006 retirees based on the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission, which became effective from 1.1.2006. Considering that the issues involved have great ramifications and in the meanwhile Bombay Bench and Patna Bench of the Tribunal rendered judgment(s) against their cause., the matter was referred to the Full Bench vide order dated 29.04.2011. The grievance projected by the applicants in these OAs are that the employees, who retired pri...
Sunil Kumar and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Comm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
HON’BLE SHRI GEORGE PARACKEN: 1. Both these OAs are identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The main prayer in these OAs is to direct the respondents to allow them to perform their duties as Safaikaramchari till regular incumbents are recruited. 2. According to the respondents, the first applicant in OA-1252/2011, namely, Ms. Kanta was engaged as substitute Safaikaramchari in DMS w.e.f. 16.3.2008 and she worked there upto June 2009. Similarly, the applicant No.2 Ms. Rekha was engaged w.e.f. 1.2.2007 and there she worked upto December 2008. 3. In the case of OA-1228/2011 applicant No.1, Sh. Sunil Kumar was engaged w.e.f. 2.5.2008 and he worked upto March 2009, the applicant No.2 Sh. Hari Prakash was engaged w.e.f. 2.6.2007 and he worked upto May 2009, the applicant No.3 Sh. Rajesh was engaged w.e.f. 2.6.2007 and he worked upto May 2009, the applicant No.4, Sh. Krishan Kumar was engaged w.e.f. 2.4.2008 and he worked upto May 2009, the applicant No.5 See...
Navendra Kumar and Others Vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, Throu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A) : 1. Shri Navender Kumar and Shri Ram Prashad are seeking direction of this Tribunal for upgradation of their pay to the scale of `17500-22300/- w.e.f. 1.10.2004 and also to direct the respondents to release interest thereon. 2. Brief factual matrix of the case would disclose that both the applicants being the officers of Indian Telecom Service, Group-A, were permanently absorbed in the service of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL) on 1.10.2000. It is, therefore, claimed by the applicants that they stood retired from the services of the Government of India and became the employees of MTNL. As such, the Rules and Regulations of MTNL would be applicable as they switched over from the CDA Pay scale to IDA pay scale. Their basic pay was fixed at `19200 in the IDA pay scale of `16000-20800 in the E-5 level. It is stated that the Respondent-MTNL framed a promotion policy on 11.09.2007, according to which, financial upgradation was directed to be all...
ishwar Singh Vs. Gnct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secretary, New Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant has challenged his suspension first by order dated 08.07.2002 and again by the order dated 27.04.2007 as well as the order dated 01.02.2010 by which his representation to the respondents to quash these orders was rejected. His prayer is to set aside the impugned orders and grant him all consequential benefits. 2. Brief facts of the case are given below:- The applicant, a DASS Grade-I Officer, while on deputation to Municipal Council of Delhi (MCD) as Admn. Officer (AO) was placed on deemed suspension w.e.f. 14.05.2002 in view of his arrest in connection with FIR No. 4/2001 under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was subsequently repatriated to the parent cadre under the Govt. of NCT. He continued under suspension till it was detected that validity of his suspension had not been extended by the Review Committee as provided under sub-rules (6)and(7) of Rule 10 of CCS (CCA) Rules (the Rules). The amendments by way of these sub-...
Salil Kumar Bhalla Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(Oral) 1. By filing the present Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is challenging the Memorandum dated 2.9.2011 and Office Order dated 7.9.2011, as at Annexure A/3, as at Annexure A/I, whereby the applicant stood relieved from his duties consequent upon his transfer and posting to SIB, Raipur, vide IB Hqrs, Order dated 1.9.2011 w.e.f. 2.9.2011. The applicant has also challenged the orders 14.9.2001 and 4.10.2011 passed by the respondents on his representations preferred against the order of transfer. The applicant’s has challenged his transfer and posting order inter alia on the grounds that as per the Govt. of India instructions and case law on the subject that mid session transfer should be avoided; the applicant has liabilities of his old age mother, brother’s family and his own family as no other male member is available in the family to look after the family and his wife is also unwell and having medical problems; the ...
Krishan Chander Vs. Union of India Through Foreign Secretary, New Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. By this OA, Shri Krishan Chander, the applicant herein, is assailing the order dated 16.04.2008 (Annexure-A) whereby the respondent while setting aside the applicant’s compulsory retirement from service, have taken recourse to place him under deemed suspension with effect from 01.05.2005 until further orders and have not allowed him to join service. 2. This is the second round of litigation before the Tribunal. In OA No.922/2005 decided by this Tribunal on 20.10.2005, the applicant challenged the major penalty of compulsory retirement from service for the alleged misconduct committed by him when he was working in the office of the Consulate General of India at Houston, USA. The details of the case are available in the orders of the Tribunal in OA No.922/2005. Hence, for brevity, relevant facts are recapitulated here. The applicant was charged with three charges; findings of the Inquiry Officer (IO) were in holding Charge No.2 as not proved...
O.P. Birdi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, Through Its Chairman and I ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A) 1. By this OA the applicant challenged (i) the order dated 14.09.2004 by which the applicant’s appeal was rejected; (ii) the order dated 31.8.2007 in which the “Censure” was passed against the applicant and the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal against the said order and (iii) order dated 28.03.2008 in which the penalty of stoppage of next one due increment without cumulative effect for a period of one year imposed on him dated 27.11.2007 was modified to the penalty of “reprimand”. 2. At the admission stage, when the learned counsel for the applicant was confronted with the position that the challenge to the appellate orders dated 14.09.2004 and 31.8.2007 would be barred by Limitation, and the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 27.11.2007 was not challenged, he confined the prayer to the challenge to the order dated 28.3.2008, and moved the MA No.3218/2010 to include the challenge to the ord...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 26
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »