Delhi Court February 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.
Sardar Singh Vs. Chairman Dtc Headquarter Ip Estate, New Delhi and Ano ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
M.L. Chauhan, J. 1. The applicant has filed this OA. Along with it, he has also filed one MA, which was registered as MA-2065/2011 for condonation of delay in filing the OA wherein following reliefs have been sought:- “(i) To direct the respondents to release the amounts of subsistence allowance and outstanding pay and allowances, leave encashment, group insurance, provident fund, gratuity, pension etc. as applicable in his case along with an interest @ 24% p.a. till final realization. (ii) To direct the respondents to make immediate payment of arrears of pay and allowances (full salary) till his date of retirement i.e. 30.06.2004, with consequential benefits as applicable in his case with an interest @ 24% p.a. till final realization. (iii) To allow present application with cost.” 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Driver with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) was removed from service w.e.f. 9.6.2000 on the charge of theft of 1...
Sita Ram Vs. Union of India Through the General Manager, North Centre ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 27.07.2011 with the directions to respondents to count the entire service i.e. 15.07.1981 to 01.07.1986 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and further direct the respondents to recalculate the pension of applicant and pay all benefits including arrears of pay, differences, after counting the entire service without any discrimination or alternatively to direct the respondents at least count the half service from 15.7.1981 to 01.07.1986 for the purpose of pensionary benefits and recalculate the pensionary benefits with all consequential benefits. They have further sought a direction that this honourable Tribunal may graciously be pleased to extend the same benefit to the applicant, which were extended to Shri Gurdial Singh, Sheikh Abdul Khadir and Shri Raj Kumar cases and other’s similarly situated persons without any discrimination. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he was init...
M/S Triveni Glass Ltd Vs. Cce, Allahabad Vice-versa
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-27-2012
Per Ms. Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Both the appeals, one filed by the appellants and other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order, as they arise of the same impugned order of the Commissioner(Appeals). We have heard Shri Narsimhan, ld. advocate appearing for the appellants and Shri Pathak, ld. DR appearing for the Revenue. 2. As per the facts on record, appellants are engaged in the manufacture of glass sheets classifiable under Heading 70.01 and 70.02 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They entered into a contract with various government departments under the Directorate General of Supplies and Disposal (DGSandD) at a contract rate for delivery of the goods. It is seen that in addition to the contracted value, the appellants were also charging sound delivery charges from their clients which varied from 30% to 40% of the total value of the goods. According to the appellants, the sound delivery charges consisted of freight, ...
Umesh Vs. the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant had filed Writ Petition No.1257/2010 before the Honble High Court of Delhi which was withdrawn on 3.3.2010 by the applicant to seek appropriate relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal. This is how the present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:- “(i) To issue order/direct the respondent to refrain from conducting the arbitrary hidden process of demotion thereby depriving the applicant from legal right of being confirmed and promoted to higher position and benefits in his service and also against the exploitation of the applicant by the respondent. (ii) To protect the service of the applicant so that the respondent may not be able to dismiss, suspend and terminate the applicant. (iii) To provide adequate compensation to the applicant who is suffering a loss in salary since beginning as the applicant is getting a total pay scale of Rs.2550-3200 instead of Rs.3050-4500 as the nature of work done by t...
Abdul Sayeed Vs. Union of India Through the Chief Administrative Offic ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has sought the following relief: “(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 27.7.2010, passed by Railway Board, by which respondents rejected the prayer of the applicant for granting the actual arrears of difference of pay and allowances w.e.f. 1.11.2003 from the date the applicant has been placed on the upgraded post under cadre restructuring post, declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the Railway Board Circular. (ii) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may further graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 27.11.2009 only to the extent by which the applicant has been given notional fixation w.e.f. 1.11.2003 consequently pass an order directing the respondent to grant the arrears of difference of pay and allowances with effect from 1.11.2003 to the applicant with interest, after granting regular prom...
Raj Kumar Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through the Chairman-cum-ma ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged the order whereby he has been promoted as AGM with effect from 17.2.2010 and has sought a direction to the respondents to deem the applicant as having been promoted from the date the post has fallen vacant with payment of resultant salary and allowances, increments and all other consequential benefits and also to pay him 24% interest on arrears from the date of promotion of the applicant till actual date of payment. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that while working as Assistant, applicant had sought permission from the authorities to pursue his graduation which was granted vide letter dated 17.3.1994 (page 21). After he passed the graduation, he requested the authorities to enter the same in his service book vide letter dated 28.2.2003 (page 23) and the said educational qualification was entered in the service book of applicant who had by then become Section Officer, as is evident from page 24. 3. It is su...
Madhuri (Nursery Teacher) Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(a) To quash and set aside the impugned order dt. 14.07.2011 passed by respondent No.2 and 3, whereby the applicant has been retired from the service of MCD at the age of 62 years after giving her only one year of reemployment instead of two years due to the illegal bar of age of 62 years contained in the scheme of automatic reemployment for retiring teachers as per notification dt. 29.01.2007. (b) To quash and set aside the decision of respondent No.2 conveyed to the applicant after retiring her through letter dt. 05.09.2011, rejecting her claim of further reemployment upto 14.07.2012 or 31.07.2012 in view of the bar of 62 years of age imposed under the notification dt. 29.01.2007 issued by Govt. of NCT, Delhi/respondent No.5. (c) To direct the respondent no.5 to make suitable modifications in the aforesaid notification issued on automatic reemployment in such a manner, as...
Arjun Lal Meena (St) and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. 19 applicants have filed this OA challenging order dated 12.8.2011 whereby they have been declared ineligible to appear for selection for the post of Loco Inspector on the ground that they do not have 75,000 kms experience as driving. They have further sought a declaration that they are eligible to appear in the selection since their junior Shri Deep Chand is being called for the selection test and after taking into account the judgments given by this Tribunal and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicants, are that they were placed in the seniority list of Loco Pilot Goods by interpolating their names vide order dated 18.5.2010 (page 119) and benefit of fixation of pay was also given to them on notional basis from an earlier date vide order dated 5.10.2010 (page 132) on the basis of judgment given by this Tribunal. 3. On 20.12.2010, Notification for the post of Loco Inspector for SC/ST was issued by the res...
M/S Brij Lal and Sons Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
1. The Petitioner, M/s Brij Lal and Sons, a registered partnership firm through, one of its partners, Mr. Tilak Raj, has filed this petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’) challenging an Award dated 1st August 2008 of the learned sole Arbitrator in the dispute between Respondent No.1, the Union of India through the Central Public Works Department (‘CPWD’) and the Petitioner, arising out of the award by CPWD of development works at RLA college, New Delhi, comprising the approach road, water supply, sewer line and underground tank in favour of the Petitioner by an agreement No.29/EE/CD-XIV/92-93. 2. The commencement date of the work as per the contract was 13th February 1993. The stipulated date of completion was 23rd August 1993. According to the Petitioner, the work could not be completed within the stipulated time and was ultimately completed on 16th September 1995. However, the Respondent did not release the final paymen...
Chand Ram Vs. Dda and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Feb-24-2012
HIMA KOHLI, J (ORAL)1. Vide order dated 04.11.2011, counsel for respondent No.2/MCD had assured the Court that the balance demolition action in respect of the subject premises bearing Flat No.D-12-59, Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi would be undertaken within four weeks from the date of passing of the aforesaid order. The matter was re-notified for today with directions to the respondent No.2/MCD to file a fresh status report. It was further directed that in case the balance demolition action is not undertaken by respondent No.2/MCD before the next date of hearing, the deponent of the affidavit dated 04.11.2011 would be present in Court.2. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Sh. Jagpal Singh, Executive Engineer, MCD, who has stepped into the shoes of the deponent of the said affidavit, is present in Court. Counsel for respondent No.2/MCD submits that respondent No.4 had filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, MCD against the demolition order dated 09.02.2011 passed by the respondent No.2/M...
- ‹ Prev
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Next ›
- Last »