Delhi Court September 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.
Dr.(Mrs.) Radhika Bahl Vs. Union of India and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. On 13.4.2002 petitioner submitted an application to the Director General BSF expressing her wish to resign immediately from the post of Chief Medical Officer citing urgent and grave domestic problem of education and accommodation of her only son causing severe mental stress to her. It was expressly stated that the notice for resignation be treated as petitioner resigning w.e.f. 13.4.2002. 2. It is apparent that the petitioner could not resign in this manner. She was bound to give due timely intimation. In any case, no government servant can unilaterally severe the relationship with the Government. It is settled law that unless accepted, a resignation by a Government servant is meaningless. 3. But that is not the issue. 4. After a protracted exchange of correspondence, petitioner's resignation was approved on 5.8.2003 and since she had stopped reporting for duties w.e.f. 13.4.2002, sanctioning various kinds of leave due to the petitioner including extra ordinary leave without pay it ...
Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Smarak Trust Vs. Samarth Nangia
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. This is a suit for possession and recovery of money. The plaintiff is the owner of property No.7, Jantar Mantar, New Delhi. A part of the ground floor and mezzanine floor of the aforesaid property was let-out by the plaintiff to the defendant vide Lease Deed dated 1 st May 2008, which was got registered on 12th June 2008, on the rent of Rs.2,15,000/- per month. The rent was to be increased by 15% after every three years. The defendant also agreed to pay service tax on the amount of the rent. The case of the plaintiff is that the defendant has failed to pay rent since 1st January 2009 despite several reminders to him in this regard. Since the defendant defaulted in payment of rent, the lease was determined vide legal notice dated 4th March 2010. The defendant, however, has not vacated the demised premises despite termination of tenancy. The plaintiff has now claimed Rs.32,25,000/- being arrears of rent for the period from 1st January 2009 to 31st March 2010. 2. This is also the case ...
Ashok Kumar Vs. D.D.A.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. The father of the petitioner was a registrant under the New Pattern Registration Scheme (NPRS) of the year 1979 of the respondent DDA for an MIG flat. He was in the year 1989 allotted a flat in Rohini on Hire Purchase basis and though the initial deposit was made but the said allotment was cancelled for the failure of the father of the petitioner having not submitted the documents showing proof of payment within the stipulated time. Be that as it may, the father of the petitioner deposited the cancellation charges and deposit whereof entitled him to be considered for fresh allotment. 2. Another flat in Mansarover Park was allotted to the father of the petitioner in the year 1991. Yet again cancellation was opted for by paying the cancellation charges. As per the Policy of the DDA, the case of the father of the petitioner thereafter was to be considered for allotment at tail end and it was so stated by the respondent DDA also in its letter dated 17th January, 1992. 3. No allotment th...
Shanker Vs. Meena
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. On 16.08.2011, this Court has passed following order:- "1. The present petition is filed against the order dated 18.03.2011 passed by ld. Addl. Sessions Judge. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 05.10.2007 the learned MM had directed that a sum of Rs.2,000/- each per month would be paid by the petitioner, to the respondent/ complainant for her maintenance and also for the maintenance of the minor daughter namely Bhavna, as an interim measure till the disposal of the petition. 3. Further the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application was filed for clarification of the said order dated 05.10.2007 that typographically it was directed that Rs.2,000/- each instead of Rs.2,000/- total in favour of the respondent for her maintenance and for the maintenance of her minor daughter. The same was dismissed on 18.12.2010 and confirmed the order dated 05.10.2007. 4. Being aggrieved the petitioner challenged the same before the Sessions Cou...
Ram Pal Singh Vs. Dg Bsf
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. 'A stitch in time saves nine' if understood by the respondents, would not have led to the present situation in which the respondents would find themselves. 2. Since pleadings are sketchy and certain relevant dates have not been highlighted therein, since relevant record has been produced for our perusal, with consent of parties we heard arguments with reference to the record produced so that the instant writ petition could be decided with fairness. 3. This is the second round of litigation. The earlier round was fought when WP(C) No.3110/1992 filed by the petitioner was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.1.1998 noting that its previous order dated 16.11.1997 directing that on the strength of the order, the petitioner would present himself before the Commandant of the 47th Bn. BSF (then stationed at Ajnala) who would permit petitioner to join duties has been complied with. 4. The requirement of 'a stitch in time saves nine', is now highlighted by us. 5....
Akhil Kumar Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Revenue), New Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
MRS. MANJULIKA GAUTAM, MEMBER (A): 1. The applicant in this OA is working in the Central Economic Intelligence Bureau. He joined in 1988 as Muster Roll worker and acquired the status of temporary worker w.e.f. 8.12.1993. On 29.07.1997, the respondents made an offer of the post of Sepoy to the applicant. There was no advertisement for the post and only a blank attestation form was provided to the applicant by the respondents. In the form, there was a column where the applicant had to state whether he belonged to SC/ST community or not. The applicant claimed that his father had procured an ST certificate as they belonged to `Konde’ tribe in Orissa, issued by the Executive Magistrate, Alipore, 24 Parganas, West Bengal. It is also admitted fact that the applicant was appointed to the post of Sepoy vide order dated 14.08.1997 on a `General’ vacancy. 2. The applicant was served with a suspension order dated 26.12.2005 under sub rule 1 of Rule 10 of the CCS (Classification, Contro...
Smt. Binder Devi Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. The applicant, in this OA, has sought the following reliefs: to direct the respondents to confer temporary status to her w.e.f. 14.6.1994, at par with Group - D officials including DA, HRA and CCA with payment of difference of pay and allowances from 14.06.1994 till date with interest @ 16% p.a. to fix the wages of the applicant at par with regular Group-D on the basis of Sixth Central Pay Commission. To regularize her services in Delhi as Peon or any Group `D’ post with all consequential benefits. 2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was appointed as Casual Labour (Peon) w.e.f. 14.06.1993 under North Central Zone, Cultural Central, Allahabad and has been posted in Janpath Bhawan, New Delhi since, as Casual Labouers (Peon) but although over 17 years have elapsed neither has she been given temporary status nor has she been regularized by the respondents as per the applicable Scheme, namely, `Casual L...
Davender Singh Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary Department of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. This is the 5th round of litigation. 2. In the previous OA No.2801/2008, filed by the applicant, he had made a prayer to be allowed to resume his duties as Technician and grant him pending salary and back-wages as well as other benefits. The Tribunal had observed as under: “2. It seems that the applicant’s case had received consideration by the Tribunal initially in 2005 when by order dated 11.03.2005 passed in OA 566/2005, he was allowed to submit a representation to be considered within a stipulated period of time. He had stated that he was an employee of DoT, which had the jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the OA was entertained. Subsequently when he again came to the Tribunal in OA 50/2006, the OA was dismissed as not maintainable as it was found that the order challenged had been issued by MTNL. Subsequently, the applicant came in review, which was also dismissed. He then went to the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi but with...
Brijendra Singh (Retd. Udc) Vs. the Union of India Through Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In compliance of the directions passed by this Tribunal in OA No.1021/2009, the respondents passed order dated 23.07.2010, which has now been challenged in the present OA and the following reliefs have been sought: to grant interest @ 12 per cent per annum on the delay payment of the pay and allowances as shown in Para 4.3 (a) and (b) being Legal Admissible for amount of Rs.22009.00 and 293348.00 from 16 Jan 1996 and 30 March 1999 respectively. To grant interest @ 12 percent per annum on the delay payment of Retirement dues under arbitrary and culpable delay in setting retirement dues as shown under sub paras (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Para 4.4 as admissible on account of GP Fund, Pension and Gratuity and Encashment of Earned Leave for Rs.54687.00, 241546.00, 52635.00, 65951.00 from 01 Feb 2006 for all cases respectively. 2. The applicant, who retired on 31.01.2006 from the post of UDC on superannuation, has sought the aforesaid reliefs on the ground ...
Ms. Beena Vs. N.C.T. of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary New Delhi an ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-20-2011
1. Ms. Beena, the applicant herein, working as part time water carrier with the respondents has been aggrieved as she has not been regularized against Group-D post as per the Recruitment Rules under 50% quota. She is also aggrieved by the action of the respondents in regularizing her junior (Smt. Laxmi Devi) in Group-D post. Therefore, the applicant is before the Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:- “(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicant under 50% quota for their regularization and appointments against the vacant posts. (ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not considering the cases of part time workers under 50% quota is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules and consequently pass an order directing th...
- ‹ Prev
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- Next ›
- Last »