Delhi Court March 2012 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.
Arpan Kumar and Others Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. As usual in all service disputes, so also in this Original Application, pleadings are too voluminous, but the points involved for our adjudication appear to be in a very narrow compass. That being so, we would give only such facts which are relatable to the controversy in issue, and would avoid unnecessary verbiage. 2. Anupam Kumar and twelve others, the applicants herein, were appointed as Senior Supervisors in Electrical Department. Thereafter they came to be appointed as Assistant Electrical Officers in Group ‘B’ on different dates. Next promotion is through induction in Group ‘A’ as Junior Scale Officers, in terms of para 209 (B) 1 of the Establishment Code 1985 of the Indian Railways, which reads as follows: “Para 209 (B) 1 Promotion from Group ‘B’ to Group ‘A’ Junior Scale-Appointments to the posts in the junior scale shall be made by selection on merit from amongst group ‘B’ officers of the...
Lakshmi Singh Negi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Lakshmi Singh Negi, Commissioner of Income Tax, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, questioning the memorandum dated 04.11.2004, vide which the President proposed to hold an enquiry against him under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1965), as per substance of the imputations of misconduct or misbehaviour mentioned in the statement of articles of charge (Annexure-I), which came to be received by the applicant along with the memorandum aforesaid. Inasmuch as, the controversy at this stage is in a very narrow compass, we may give only such facts as may be relatable to the same. 2. The applicant joined the Indian Revenue Service in the year 1980. He was initially posted as Assistant Commissioner, and later promoted as Joint Commissioner in the year 1999, and then as Commissioner in the yea...
Mahesh Tyagi Vs. Union Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Mahesh Tyagi, the applicant herein, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, to declare the selection process initiated by the first respondent on the basis of the advertisement issued in September, 2011 as null and void being illegal and arbitrary, as also to direct the respondents to abide by rule 7(1A) of ILS Rules, in making appointments to the post of Deputy Legal Adviser. 2. The facts culminating into filing of the present Original Application, as may emanate from the pleadings made therein, reveal that at present the applicant is holding the post of Deputy Legal Adviser (DLA) on ad hoc basis in the Ministry of Law and Justice, and it is his case that till date he has been promoted only to the post of DLA on ad hoc basis. A notification (Annexure A-1) came to be issued by the first respondent for filling up five posts of Deputy Legal Adviser on direct recruitment basis. The selection was challenged by ...
Doly Loyi Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. The controversy in this case is in a very narrow compass, and that being so, we may only give such facts as may be relatable to the same, as may emanate from the respective pleadings of parties and the accompanying documents. 2. The applicant joined the office of the respondents as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 16.12.1987, and was promoted as Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in December, 1991, and thereafter as Joint Commissioner of Income Tax on 19.07.2001. CBI lodged one RC/FIR against the applicant on 31.05.2001, but despite that the applicant was promoted as Additional Commissioner of Income Tax with effect from 01.09.2001. Sanction order to prosecute the applicant as regards RC referred to above came to be issued on 02.06.2006. On 25.07.2008, the respondents convened a DPC and issued promotion orders in respect of juniors of the applicant. As regards the same RC, sanction once again came to be given on 25.09.2008. It is not known as to why the sa...
Rakesh Mohan Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Af ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. This is the second round of litigation for the same relief. Earlier in point of time, the applicant, a 1978-batch IAS officer, at that time working as Principal Secretary (Education), Government of NCT of Delhi, took exception to his being overlooked in the matter of promotion to the grade and scale of Secretary in preference to one of his juniors. He sought quashing or order dated 13.04.2011, whereby he was denied promotion, and in consequence thereof, to issue direction to the respondents to consider him for promotion to the cadre and scale of Secretary with effect from the date his junior was promoted. All aspects of the case in all their minute details have been threadbare referred to, discussed and adjudicated upon. There would be no need to reiterate the same in this order. This order be read in continuation of our judgment recorded in the earlier Original Application of the applicant bearing OA No.3379 of 2011 decided on 15.11.2011. We may, however, reite...
W/Ct. (Ex.) Ritu Chaudhary Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Chie ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman: Ritu Chaudhary, the applicant herein, was appointed as Woman Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police with effect from 01.04.2009 after availing relaxation insofar as her height is concerned. The required height was 157 cms, whereas the applicant was 155.1 cms. The next higher post for the post of Constable (Exe.) is that of Head Constable (Exe.). The applicant, who was desirous of competing for the post of Head Constable (Exe.) as a departmental candidate, has been refused relaxation in height. It is against this action of the respondents that present Original Application has been filed by her under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with the prayer that the order dated 10.01.2012 whereby height of the applicant has not been relaxed be set aside, and in consequence thereof, a direction be issued to the respondents to relax the minimum height standard of the applicant for considering her for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial). 2. Pursuant t...
Anil Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Anil Kumar, desiring to be a Constable (Exe.) Male in Delhi Police, successfully competed for the post, having cleared all the tests. However, after putting him to notice and having his reply, vide order dated 22.03.2011 his candidature has been cancelled for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.190/2009 u/s 452/354/506 IPC pertaining to PS Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana. It is this order which is under challenge in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant had revealed his involvement in the relevant columns of the application and attestation forms. His selection was provisional, subject to verification of character and antecedents etc. In that exercise, it appears, the matter went before the screening committee, on the recommendations of which, the concerned authority had put the applicant to notice, and, as mentioned above, cancelled his candidatur...
S.P. Singh Vs. Raghubir Singh and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
ORAL: MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. This review application has been filed by one Shri S.P. Singh on the ground that in para 7 of the judgment dated 02.06.2011, it has been mentioned that though service was complete on the private respondents but they opted not to contest the case, which according to the review applicant is an error apparent on the face of the record because he had already filed written submissions in the case. He has further stated that before deciding the case of Shri Raghubir Singh, seniority of Shri S.P. Singh should have been decided qua one Shri Gautam Ray at the level of Deputy Registrar. 2. Respondents, original applicant as well as official respondent, i.e. respondent No.3, have opposed this review application on the ground that Shri S.P. Singh had already raised the issue of his seniority qua Shri Gautam Ray by filing original application No. 53/2003 before Guwahati Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal. However, the said OA was dismissed on 04.10...
Joginder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. The candidature of the applicant, who was desirous of being a Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police during the recruitment held in the year 2009, has filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, calling in question order dated 11.05.2011, vide which his candidature has been cancelled. 2. The candidature of the applicant has been cancelled only because the respondents would find him unfit for his involvement in a criminal case FIR No.761 of 2010 u/s 148/149/323/325/506 IPC, PS Jhajjar. Before passing the impugned order, a show cause notice came to be given to the applicant, to which he responded, but, as in every case, so also in this, a stereo-type order has been passed, wherein even though, it is mentioned that the candidature of the applicant was examined by the screening committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police to judge the nature of his involvement in the criminal case, gravity of the offence, judgment of ...
Suhan Lata Vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Home, New Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-07-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Ms. Suhan Lata, the applicant herein, in response to the advertisement applied for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) Female in Delhi Police. In the advertisement, 82 posts were to be filled up, out of which, 43 were in unreserved category, 22 in OBC, 13 in SC and 4 in ST categories. The applicant belongs to unreserved category. She having become eligible in the physical endurance and measurement test, wrote her examination in the written test and secured 124 marks. It is the case of the applicant that cut off marks in the unreserved category was 126, as a result of which, 29 seats were filled through the unreserved category candidates and 14 seats went to the candidates from the reserved category as they secured more than the cut off mark of 126. The applicant is aggrieved by her non selection in the unreserved category and has come to the Tribunal with the following prayers:- “i) direct the respondents to produce complete details and ...
- ‹ Prev
- 16
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 22
- 23
- 24
- 25
- 26
- Next ›
- Last »