Delhi Court October 2012 Judgments
Browse smarter
Turn browsing into brief-ready notes
Open any judgment and get a structured AI Brief in seconds — plus Semantic Search when you need to hunt by meaning, not keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed — log in to pick up where you left off.
Shri Ram Bilas Mehto and Others Vs. Dr. S. Iyyappan, Secretary and Oth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
(ORAL) Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) In response to the notices in the CP No.690/2012 and CP No.691/201, Shri Gagan Mathur, learned counsel for respondents has produced before us copies of the five Office Order Nos. 13-229/ 74-P-V/13-230/74-P-V/ 13-108/73-P-V/ 17-538/69-P-V/ 2-11/83-P-V/13-289/74-P-V dated 29.10.2012, passed by the respondents, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Institute. As per these orders, the reversion order of all the original applicants i.e. Shri Ram Bilas Mehto,Shri Bachan Singh, Shri Narender Singh, Shri Dharam Singh and Shri Khushi Ram from T-4 to T-1-3 have been withdrawn. It is also stated that these employees who had opted for the old TSR w.e.f. 2006 would be governed by old TSR from the date i.e. 2006. 2. In these two OAs, the directions given by the Tribunal by its common order dated 04.11.2011 were as follows :- 9. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and set aside with directions to the respondents for not reverting the appli...
Sh. Rajinder Singh Vs. Sh. P.K. Tripathi, the Chief Secretary, Govt. o ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 10.02.2012 in OA No.447/2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- 2. First of all, we observe that this OA is absolutely vague. Secondly, if the applicant has any grievance against the respondents, he should approach the concerned Department first and get his grievance redressed departmentally. In case, the respondents fail to redress his grievance, then only he can approach this Tribunal. Therefore, this Original Application is dismissed in limine at the admission stage itself. However, he is at liberty to make a detailed representation clearly making out his grievances one by one within a period of two months from today. If such a representation is received, the Respondents shall consider the same and dispose of it in accordance with the Rules, within two weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. 2. Today, when the matter was take...
Sh. S.K. Singh and Others Vs. Union of India, Through the Secretary, D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
(ORAL) G. George Paracken These original applications are identical in nature and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the reliefs sought by the applicants in OA No.52/2012 are reproduced as under:- (1) An order/direction by their Lordships of this Honble Tribunal quashing/setting aside the impugned orders dated 30/5/2011 and 11/11/2009 passed respectively by the Respondent-2/Academy and the Respondent/1=DOPT being disciplinary, unconstitutional and against the mandate of the Rule 7(10 (A) (i) and (ii) and thus in flagrant violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and against the very essence of the recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission and accepted by the Government of India vide its Notification dated 29/8/2008 in the matter of the basic/substantive pay of the applicants in the common scale of Rs. 6500-10500 with the merger therein of the Pay Scales of Rs.5000-9000. (2) An order/direction by their Lordships of this H...
Hc Subhash Chand and Another Vs. Gnct of Delhi, Through Commissioner o ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
G. George Paracken, Member (J): All these three OAs are identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. The applicant in OA No. 4447/2011-Shri Subhash Chander was appointed as Constable (Executive) in 1991. Thereafter, he was promoted on out of turn to the post of Head Constable in 2002. The applicant in OA No. 4448/2011-Shri Mahipal was appointed as Constable (Executive) in 1998. Similarly, the applicant in OA No. 4449/2011 - Shri Abhimanyu was also appointed as Constable (Executive) in 1998. While they were working at Beat Number 4 under the jurisdiction of P.S. Bharat Nagar w.e.f. April to July, 2010 they were served with the following charges:- SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE APPLICANT IN OA NO. 4447/2011 - SH. SUBHASH CHANDER IS AS UNDER:- On 19.07.10 Sh. Prem Nath ACP/PG/NW with Insp. Banwari Lal No.D-859 (P.I.S.No.16920063) and ASI Krishan Kumar No.4792/D (P.I.S.No.28770216) of Vigilance NWD and Photographer HC Rajesh No.439/NW (P.I.S. No.28950848) visite...
Manjeet Singh and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-30-2012
G. George Paracken: 1. The issue raised in all these Original Applications is identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in OA 1519/2012 have been considered in this order. 2. The respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB for short) has notified Annexure A-2 Advertisement No. 004/2009 in the edition of the Employment News of 26.12.2009 to 05.01.2010 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to various posts in the Govt. of NCT of Delhi/autonomous bodies/local bodies with different post codes. The applicants in all these cases were candidates for the posts of Teacher (Primary) in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD for short) with Post Code No. 70/09. According to the said advertisement, the opening date and the closing date for receipt of applications were 29.12.2009 and 15.01.2010 respectively. The number of vacancies advertised were 4500 (UR-1900, OBC-1044, SC-766, ST-790)....
Rajesh Dabas and Another Vs. Sh. V.K. Pradhan, Through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the orders of this Tribunal dated 25.07.2012 in OA No. 2159/2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- 4. We are of the view that present OA can be disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the Medical Superintendent, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital to decide the representation dated 28th December, 2011 by passing reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, respondent no.2 is directed to dispose of the representation of the applicants within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by passing reasoned and speaking order. In case applicant is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the authorities, it will be open, for him to file a substantive OA. 5. OA shall stand disposed of. 2. The learned counsel for the respondents has filed compliance report enclosing therewith a copy of the Memorandum dated 26.10.2012 rejecting...
Rakesh Kumar Gupta Vs. Nct of Delhi Through Chief Secretary Office of ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: The present application is directed against the respondents for not granting him second Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Scheme since October, 2010, in spite of the recommendations of the Pay Commission and respondents own order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined service as TGT (General) on 09.10.1990. Thereafter, he was promoted as PGT/Lecturer (Political Science) w.e.f. 01.01.1998. 3. The Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide Annexure A-3 Resolution dated 29.08.2008, issued instructions regarding granting of MACP benefits to the Government employees. According to the applicant, he is entitled for the MACP benefits w.e.f. 09.10.2010. In this regard he has also made representations to the respondents to grant him the aforesaid benefits and the same was forwarded to respondent No.3 vide Annexure A-5 letter dated 22.02.2010. Thereafter, he has made a number of representations to the respondents. According ...
Sayeda Sadaf Zaheer Vs. Manish Gupta, Commissioner, South Delhi Munici ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-29-2012
(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the orders of this Tribunal dated 23.04.2012 in OA No. 1320/2012. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- 2. In view of the above submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Applicant, the respondents may examine this case in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Honble High Court and the judgment of this Tribunal dated 15.11.2011 and 30.11.2012 respectively and if the same is covered by them, they shall extend the same benefits to the applicant herein as have been granted to the candidates in the aforesaid case within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case the position is otherwise, the respondent shall pass a reasoned and speaking order within the aforesaid period. With the above directions this OA is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs. 2. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondent - Delhi Subo...
Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Pvt. Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Allahabad
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-26-2012
Justice Ajit Bharihoke (Oral): This appeal is directed against the order in appeal No. 241/CE/ALLD/2011 dated 21.11.2011 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) , Central Excise, Allahabad whereby he dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant against the order in original dated 29.1.2010 on the ground that appeal was barred by limitation. 2. The case of the Department is that order in original was dispatched to the appellant through speed post on 2nd February 2010. The aforesaid order was not received back undelivered. As such there is a legal presumption that the order in original was duly served on the appellant. Commissioner (Appeals) raising aforesaid presumption took the plea that the appeal was filed by the appellant sixty days after steh service of adjudication order. As such it was time barred. 3. The case of the appellant is that appellant did not receive the order in original allegedly sent through speed post and he actually received the matter on 5.5.2011 and the appeal was fi...
M/S. Sisco Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Allahaba ...
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Oct-25-2012
Archana Wadhwa: Cenvat credit stand denied to the appellant on the ground that the same has been availed on the basis of invoices which are either in the name of their another unit, located in the close vicinity or are not disclosing the address of the appellant or have given the wrong address of their head office. 2. I find that the appellants relied upon various decisions of the Tribunal before Commissioner (Appeals), who has not referred to same on the ground that all the three units are of the same company, similarly named, are located in nearby areas, and as such, in the absence of proper address identification, there is every chance of mis-use of documents. However, I find that the Cenvat credit is available subject to the condition that the use of the inputs is in the appellants final product. If there is no dispute about the fact that other units have also availed credit in respect of same raw materials covered by the same invoices, the denial of credit may not be justified bas...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »