Delhi Court December 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.
Satpal Singh Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, Ne ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The question for consideration in this OA is whether the applicant on acquittal in the criminal case initiated against him and exoneration in the departmental proceedings held against him on the same set of charges is entitled for pay and allowances of the promoted post from the date of his actual promotion or from the date of notional promotion i.e. the date on which his immediate junior has been promoted. 2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this case are delineated hereunder. While the applicant was working as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC, for short) he was detained in Criminal Case No. 10/1999 arising from FIR No.36/93 dated 26.7.93 u/s 7 and 13 Prevention of Corruption Act. Consequently, he was placed under deemed suspension with effect from the same date vide order dated 16.8.1993. Thereafter, the responders have themselves revoked his suspension with immediate effect vide order dated 31.10.1995 without prejudice to the findings. Late...
Sh. Labh Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
(ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman : 1. The applicant was recommended for out of turn promotion in the year 2006. The said order has been reviewed on 25.06.2010 by the Incentive Committee. Such review is impermissible as held by this Tribunal on number of occasions. We may only make a reference to OA No.3681/2009 in the matter of SI Umesh Barthwal versus GNCTD and other connected OAs against which connected writ petitions came to be filed before the High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.5444/2010 and others, which were dismissed vide order dated 10.12.2010. 2. Same directions to follow in this case as were issued in the matter of SI Umesh Barthwal (supra). Disposed of accordingly....
Rameshwar Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, Ministry of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The short question that is being considered in this case is whether the applicant shall be governed by the Old Pension Scheme or the New Pension Scheme which has come into force w.e.f. 1.1.2004. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of the above issue are delineated here. The applicant was initially appointed as a casual labour w.e.f. 23.5.1989 and he was working in the Area Accounts Office (Army), Agra Cantt. a Sub Office in the Defence Accounts Department under Main Office CDA (Army). Even though his initial engagement was for 89 days on daily wages, he was allowed to continue on year to year basis by giving artificial and technical breaks of one or two days in between in different spells of re-engagements. Some of the similarly placed persons who have been engaged even later than the applicant had approached this Tribunal and on its directions, they have been granted temporary status followed by regularization in service in terms of the Scheme...
Ram Hans Subodh Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-02-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has made a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.11.2007 by which the Disciplinary Authority (DA) imposed the penalty of removal from service and directed to treat the entire period of unauthorized absence as dies-non involving break in service for all purposes; to set aside the letter dated 16.04.2009 of the Director communicating the order of the Appellate Authority (AA) whereby the applicant was reinstated in service and the penalty of removal was reduced to reduction of pay to a lower stage for four years during which the applicant would not earn increments; to set aside the order dated 30.05.2009 of the AA by which the period of removal till the date of reinstatement was treated as on duty but without pay and allowances. 2. The applicant who was working with the respondents as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (English) was transferred to Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School No.1, Palam Village, New Delhi where he joined on 20.08.2004. He w...
Sh. Rakesh Semalty Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through Its Chief Secreta ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The grievance of the applicant is that his representation for protection of pay was rejected by the respondents in their Memorandum dated 16.12.2009 which has been impugned in this O.A. 2. The applicant was working with Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) (English). He applied for the post of PGT (English) advertised by the respondents. On selection, he joined on the post of PGT (English) under the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi. Ultimately, on completion of his lien, he resigned from KVS and was absorbed with the respondents. The respondents also permitted counting of the applicants past service with KVS for pensionary benefits vide their order dated 23.04.2009. However, his repeated representations to grant him protection of pay at the time of fixation of his salary at the time of his joining the services of the respondents were not allowed. The impugned order dated 16.12.2009 states that his reques...
Rekha Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
Hon’ble Shri George Paracken: 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application alleging that respondents have arbitrarily denied her appointment to the post of Physical Education Teacher (PET for short) in spite of the fact that she secured 100 marks in the Part II examination and qualified Part I examination in General category which was equal to the marks secured by the last selected candidate. 2. The brief facts in this case are delineated here. The Respondent - Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSB for short) issued the advertisement No.01/2010 dated February 2010 in the Employment News for recruitment to various posts including PET in Govt. of NCT of Delhi. They have advertised a total 127 vacancies of PET. Out of which 55 vacancies were reserved for OBC candidates. The final result was declared on 4.3.2011 with the stipulation that the result has been declared as per the combined merit in the Part-II (descriptive) examination held on 27.6.2010 and after deter...
Ms. Sneh Lata Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through: the Chief Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 06.06.2011 of Respondent No.3 by which Respondent No.2 (DSSSB) was intimated that the applicant did not satisfy the eligibility criteria. She has made the following prayer:- “(i) To quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 06.06.2011 and direct the respondents to appoint the applicant to the post of TGT (Skt.) in terms of offer of appointment dated 24.02.2011 from the date of appointment of similarly placed persons with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. (ii) To allow the OA with costs.” 2. The applicant was a candidate for the post of TGT Sanskrit for which applications were invited in February, 2011 by advertisement No. 01/2010 of the Selection Board. The requirement for educational qualification was stated as hereunder:- “A Bachelors Degree with Sanskrit as one of the elective subject(s) from recognized University having secured 45% marks in aggregat...
S.C. Monga Vs. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting Through Secret ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
(ORAL) Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: 1. Sequel to a regular departmental enquiry, the applicant, who was Director (Engineering), was inflicted punishment of reduction of pay by one stage in the time scale of pay till his retirement, vide orders dated 02.07.2008. The applicant superannuated on 31.08.2008. Against the order dated 2.7.2008, the applicant filed statutory appeal on 15.06.2011, which was barred by a period of about three years. Concededly, no application for condonation of delay was filed nor even a mention was made in the appeal itself as to what were the reasons which prevented him to file an appeal earlier in point of time i.e. within 45 days from the date on which a copy of the impugned order came to be delivered to him. We are of the considered view that the appellate authority has rightly rejected the appeal of the applicant. 2. Finding no merit, present Original Application stands dismissed....
Arvind Cairae and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
By Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The Review Application No.393/2011 has been filed by the original applicants seeking a review of the Tribunal’s Order dated 25.8.2011 dismissing the Original Application. This RA has been filed on 4th November, 2011 along with MA 3075/2011 for condonation of delay. On going through the reasons explicated in the MA for condonation of delay, the same are found to be unacceptable. 2. The applicants, working as Data Processing Assistants Grade III and II under the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, Government of India, through this OA, third in the series, were seeking absorption into the Subordinate Statistical Service with effect from the date of inception. Challenging the respondents’ office Memorandum dated 15.10.2008, passed in pursuance of the directions in the OA 812/2007 and rejecting the claims again, the present OA sought the following relief: “8a. This Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to direct the Respondents to iss...
C.M. Vij Vs. Sh. K.S. Mehra (Chief Executive) the Commissioner Municip ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Dec-01-2011
(ORAL) : Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman : RA No.267/2011 1. TA No.1060/2009 was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 11.11.2009 against which the respondents in the original lis carried writ petition bearing WP(C) No.4355/2010 in the High Court of Delhi, which was disposed of on 14.02.2011 by recording the following order:- “After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, seeks to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to approach the tribunal for review of the order impugned before us on the grounds which were earlier not agitated before the tribunal. Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for. The tribunal shall consider the application for condonation of delay in seeking review considering all the relevant facts.” 2. The Writ Petition has simply been dismissed as withdrawn on the statement of the counsel. There is no order by the High Court that there can be a review on grounds which were not agitated before the Tribunal. It appears ...
- ‹ Prev
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 20
- Next ›
- Last »