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.
Ramesh Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Sequel to a regular departmental enquiry, Ramesh Kumar, the applicant herein, an Inspector in Delhi Police, has been inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of three years’ approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in his pay. The period of suspension from 07.08.2007 till such time the order of punishment came to be passed on 28.09.2010 has been treated as period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes. The appellate authority has confirmed the order aforesaid vide order dated 04.03.2011. These are the orders which have been challenged by the applicant in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. The enquiry officer after recording statements of R. K. Singh, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited (PW-1); Naveen Kumar Bhatia (PW-2); W/ASI (Min.) Shashi Kuatter (PW-3); HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-4); Inspr. C. K. Sharma (PW-5); and Harish Chander Joshi (PW-6), framed the following c...
R.L. Gupta Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi, Through Its Chief Secretary, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. Shri R. L. Gupta, the retired Principal of Government Boys Senior Secondary School of the Government of NCTD joined as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) with the respondents on 20.08.1956, got promotion to PGT on 15.07.1964 and was promoted as Vice Principal on 13.07.1989 and Principal on ad hoc basis on 29.10.1995. Ultimately, he retired from the said post on 30.04.1996. Since his retirement, he has been visiting the Tribunal on many occasions to get his grievances redressed. Earlier, for non sanction of selection scale of PGT, the applicant filed OA No.1152/2008 which was decided on 8.09.2008 with a direction to the respondents to grant the selection scale as admissible to him as per the rules. He came in the Contempt Petition No.118/2009 for non-compliance of the directions of the Tribunal in the said OA. Ultimately, the respondents implemented the order on 3.06.2009 and the CP was disposed of. He again submitted an application in the Tribunal ...
Yogendra Rathi Vs. the Govt. of N.C.T.D, Through the Commissioner of P ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) MR. M.L.CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(i)To set aside the impugned orders A-1 to A-2 and to further direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as constable (Driver) with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowances.” 2. As can be seen from the relief clause, grievance of the applicant is regarding show cause notice dated 8.7.2010 (Annexure A-1) and final order dated 14.2.2011 (Annexure A-2) whereby candidature of the applicant was cancelled for the post of Constable (Driver). Notice of the application was given to the respondents pursuant to which learned counsel for respondents has put in appearance. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.76/2011 with connected matters wherein this Tribunal in paragraphs 8 and 9 has made the following observations:- “8. It is...
Daryao Singh Vs. D.T.T.D.C. Through G.G. Saxena Managing Director, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) MR. M.L.CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. The applicant has filed this Contempt Petition for alleged violation of the order dated 20.05.2011 whereby this Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant and pass appropriate speaking order trying to redress the grievances of the applicant within a period of three months. It was further observed that if the applicant is still aggrieved in any manner, he shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum as per law. Pursuant to the order passed by this Tribunal, respondents no.1 and 2 have passed separate orders dated 03.08.2011 and 09.09.2011 (Annexures C-3 and C-4). 2. In view of what has been stated above, no case of contempt is made out. In case, the applicant is still aggrieved by the aforesaid orders passed by respondents no.1 and 2, it will be open to him to file substantive OA. The Contempt Petition stands disposed of accordingly....
Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(Oral) 1. In this case notice to the respondents was issued on 18.1.2011. Thereafter this case was listed on four occasions to enable the respondents to file their counter reply. Till date reply has not been filed by the respondents. Today nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents even on revised call. I proceed to dispose of this Application under Rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. 2. By filing this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking directions to the respondents to consider the case of applicant No.1 for the grant of compassionate appointment and further to release retiral/terminal benefits to the applicants no.1 and 2. The applicants have filed representation in this regard to the respondents on 16.1.2009. However, till date no decision on the same has been communicated to the applicants. 3. At the hearing, Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel appearing for applicants submits that the applicants wou...
Kuldeep Arya Vs. Union of India Through Secretary to Government, New D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Shri Kuldeep Arya, belonging to OBC category from Haryana State, the applicant herein, having been successful in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2008 with all India rank of 44, was appointed to the Indian Administrative Service [IAS] and was allocated to the Gujarat cadre. In the present OA, it is his case that though he is entitled to the benefits of reservation in the OBC category but having secured high rank he was inducted as general merit candidate. He came to know that there were three vacancies in Haryana IAS cadre to be filled by the IAS Probationers selected in the CSE 2008 out of which the only insider vacancy was allocated to the general category candidate. Applicant’s father represented through his letter dated 30.102009 (Annexure-2) to the first respondent about the discriminatory cadre allocation to the insider general category instead of reserving the said vacancy to the insider OBC candidate. It is the applicant’...
K. Kannan and Others Vs. the Chairperson National Human Rights Commiss ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL): MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. The applicants were given ad hoc appointment in the year 2008 which is being extended from time to time and today may be their last working day, the only grievance of the applicants in the present OA is that there were others also, who were appointed on ad hoc basis in the year 2007-2008, whose services have been regularised, whereas, the applicants have been shown the exit door. We could understand the only plea raised by the applicants based on discrimination if the pleadings had shown that the applicants are similarly situate as those who have been regularized. The minimum requirement to show so was that the applicants should have placed on record their appointment letters and of those who have been regularized. Only then, some comparison between the two sets of employees could be made. The applicants have brought neither their orders of appointment, nor of those who have been regularized in service. 2. Confronted with the position aforesa...
Jagdeep Chiller Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through Its Commiss ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) : MR. JUSTICE V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. When confronted with the position that there is no clarity as regards the seniority of the applicant in the promotional quota, so as to show that he will be immediate next for promotion, and it is also not clear that as to how many vacancies are meant for promotional quota and how many are vacant, counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this OA with liberty to the applicant to file fresh one with better particulars. 2. With leave and liberty, as asked for, the present Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn....
Ravindra Kumar Vs. the Commissioner of Police Police Headquarters, New ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
SHRI M.L. CHAUHAN: 1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) direct the respondents to consider the candidature of applicant as open/SC candidate and consequently declare his result to the post of Sub-Inspector (Ex.) and offer him appointment to the post with all consequential benefits (b) award costs of the proceedings and (c) pass any other order/direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement in the Employment News dated 17-23.1.2009 for filling up of 400 vacancies of Sub Inspector (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. Out of 400 vacancies, 320 were meant for open category, 40 were meant for departmental candidates and remaining 40 meant for ex-servicemen. Out of 40 vacancies meant for departmental category, 21 vacancies were meant f...
H.C. Pratap Singh Vs. the Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Nov-01-2011
(ORAL) MR. M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J): 1. Applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i)To set aside the impugned order at A-1 dated 13.1.09, A-2 dated 16.11.2009 and A-3 dated 31.8.2010 and to further direct the respondent to restore the forfeited services of the applicant alongwith pay and allowances with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay and allowance. (ii)To set aside the findings of the Enquiry Officer. (iii)Any other relief which this Hon’ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.” 2. As can be seen from the relief clause the grievance of the applicant is regarding earlier order dated 13.1.2009, whereby he was dealt with departmentally and order dated 16.10.2009, whereby disciplinary authority (DA) has imposed punishment upon applicant and order dated 31.05.2010, whereby the appeal of the applicant was dismissed. Applicant has challenged the impugned orders on various grounds...
- ‹ Prev
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 27
- Next ›
- Last »