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.
Ram Dass Vs. Delhi Development Authority and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. MA 3492/2011 seeking restoration of OA is allowed. 2. Applicant has challenged order dated 13.09.2010 whereby his appeal has been rejected, order dated 17.05.2010 whereby penalty has been imposed on him and charge sheet dated 13.03.2008. 3. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that vide memorandum dated 13.03.2008, following allegations were levelled against the applicant: “Sh. Ram Dass was posted as Assistant (now Asstt. Director) in Co-operative Group Housing Society Section of DDA, INA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi from October 1997 to May 2001. As Dealing Asstt., he dealt with the files of Co-operative Group Housing Societies of Delhi for allotment of land to these societies. He issued an offer-cum-allotment of land to these societies. He issued an offer-cum-allotment letter No.F.7(14)95/GH/DDA/764 dt. 31.3.95 to Maharani Avanti Bai CGHS Ltd. This letter was wrongly addressed to F-61, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi and as such returned undelivered...
Manoj Kumar Singh and Others Vs. Union Public Service Commission
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Six applicants have joined together in the present OA and are aggrieved by the action of the respondent-Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) who alleged to have committed error in evaluation of the answer sheets, totaling of the marks, and the manner of applying the system of moderation adopted in the evaluation process for the answer books of the applicants for the main examination of Civil Services Examination, 2010 (CSE-2010 in short), which in their opinion has caused great sufferings to them as they have not become successful in the said examination. They further claimed that they had performed excellently well in the CSE-2010 and had excellent past records in their academic career. 2. At the admission stage, we heard Shri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants. He would narrate the case of the applicants and submit that necessary directions are required to be issued to the respondent to produce the records, attendance sheets, ra...
Chhatar Singh Yadav and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. Both the above RAs seek a review of the Tribunal’s common order dated 3.8.2011 disposing the TA 318/2009 and the OA 1646/2010 along with one other TA. The present order is being passed after hearing the learned counsels for the review applicants, the official as well as the private respondents. 2. The applicants in all these OA/TAs were Class IV employees under the MCD agitating claims for appointment as LDCs under the 10% promotional quota. Through these applications, they were challenging the selection process emanating from the examination held on 11.9.2005. Besides the official respondents, these claims had been opposed by the private respondents representing the successful candidates appointed on the basis of the said examination. The applications had been dismissed by the Tribunal’s impugned order dated 3.8.2011. 3. The instant Review Applications have been filed on the grounds of ‘an error apparent on the face of the record’. Shri C...
Gyan Bir and Others Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicants have challenged the order dated 28.09.2011 of respondent No.2 by which they were not considered for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant. Their prayer is to set aside the impugned order and to direct the respondents to consider the applicants for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant w.e.f. 28.09.2011. 2. The applicants are Group-D employees of the respondent-government. They are eligible for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant if they satisfy the provisions of the Recruitment Rules meant for promotion to that post. It is their case that 72 employees have been selected for promotion to the post of Laboratory Assistant on the basis of the impugned order, even though service details such as IC/VC and WC were not available with the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC); the promotion order is a conditional one in which it has been mentioned that the promotions of the candidates enlisted in the order are subject to r...
A.C. Aggarwal Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Government of India ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. Shri A. C. Aggarwal, the applicant herein, is a retired Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Officer who retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.1987. It is the claim of the applicant that the 2nd respondent has been granting the Leave Travel Concession (LTC) under the LTC Rules for encashment of leave once in four years in lieu of LTC. Such provision, it is averred, was made applicable to all the pensioners of the 2nd respondent and the same benefit should be extended to the retired IAS Officers serving in the State of Haryana. 2. We heard the applicant who argued his case in person and highlighted that lump sum amount is being paid to the pensioner of Haryana Government and the same financial benefits should be given to him as he worked in the service of Haryana Government. It is the case of the applicant that claiming the above said facilities under Rule (2) (b) of Residuary Rules, as per which, the Central Gov...
Nakul Dev and Another Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A) 1. Three applicants have joined together in filing the present OA and are seeking the following relief (s) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:- “(A) Direct the Respondents to hold the Assessment Board to assess the Applicants for the grade of Joint Director, under the Flexible Complementing Scheme (of in-situ promotion), at the earliest, (B) Assess the Applicants for the grade of Joint Director-even if they superannuate; (C) Pass such other and further order or orders direction or directions as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances to meet the ends of justice.” 2. Brief factual matrix of the case would disclose that the applicants were initially appointed as Research Officer (Engineering) in the office of Central Soil and Material Research Station (CSMRS) and they joined in February/June 1985. The next higher post being Senior Research Officer and the relevant Rules gov...
Rajesh Malhotra Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. RAMESH CHandRA PandA, MEMBER (A): 1. The applicant is an officer of the Indian Information Service (IIS) and belongs to 1989 batch. He is aggrieved by the seniority list issued by the official respondents dated 1.04.2009 and corrected up to 30.10.2009 vide their order dated 9.11.2009 (Annexure-A1) wherein the applicant is likely to be prejudiced in the ongoing Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) process which was actively considered by the 1st and 2nd respondents. Feeling that his interest will be prejudiced by the said DPC, the applicant has approached this Tribunal with the following prayers:- “A. Seniority list issued vide I.D No.A.23012/1/2009-IIS on 9.11.2009 as contained in ANNEXURE A-1 may be declared as null and void and non-est in the eye of law as it stands superseded or substituted by ID Note No.A-32013/4/2009-IIS (PT)/97 dated 8.4.2011/9.5.2011 Annexure A-9 far as the applicant and Respondents No.3 to 6 are concerned. B. The Respondent No.1 and 2 may be directe...
SachIn Vs. Northern Railway
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) 1. Applicant has sought the following relief:- “(i) Direct the respondent to appoint the applicant immediately as Group ‘D’ substitute to Apprentice Trained Persons in compliance with Apprentice Scheme and Directions of Apex Court as narrated above. The applicant being top most senior be given preference for appointment in future even if special post has to be created so that already 28 persons are not disturbed for the fault of the respondent. (ii) The applicant be treated at par with the junior 28 appointees in respect of consequential benefits and back wages. He may be placed above all of them in seniority. (iii) Pass any other order to undo the miscarriage of justice done to the applicant due to the fault committed by the Respondent’s and for non consideration of the respondent claim for the job. Any other direction be also kindly issued that this Hon’ble Tribunal considers fit and proper in the facts and circumstances o...
P.S. Sharma Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chief Secretary and ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
DR. A.K. MISHRA, MEMBER (A) 1. The applicant has challenged the order dated 02.05.2011 by which his pay in the higher pay scale (Rs.7500-250-12000) was fixed on grant of ACP benefits w.e.f. 21.12.2005. His prayer is to set aside this order and to direct the respondent to re-fix his pay w.e.f. 01.01.2006 after following the provisions of the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- 2.1 The applicant was appointed to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) on 21.12.1981. He got his promotion to the post of Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) on 10.08.2001. He was entitled to the second financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme introduced in the year 1999 on completion of 24 years of service. Accordingly, he was granted ACP benefits w.e.f. 21.12.2005. The applicant was given the option for fixation of pay vide order dated 11.10.2006 of the respondents. The applicant gave the option that it should be fixed on 01.01.2006 when his next increment was falling due....
Uday Raj Singh and Others Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Mar-05-2012
Oral: DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY: 1. The applicants (21 in number) are working as Technician Grade-II under the Northern Railways, Delhi Division, and are presently posted in EMU Car Shed, N.R. Ghaziabad. They have challenged the impugned order dated 2.3.2010 (Annex A/1), rejecting their representation dated 9.6.2006 even after re-examination. Through this representation, the applicants had claimed that the benefit of promotion from Technical Gr-III to Gr-II should have been given to them from the date of restructuring i.e. w.e.f. 1.11.2003 instead from a subsequent date i.e. the date of promotion. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “8(i) That the Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned decision taken by the Senior DPO, New Delhi i.e. respondent no.3, which has been communicated to the applicants vide letter dated 2.3.2010, by which respondent No.3 rejected the prayer of the applicants for granting the actual arrears of difference of p...
- ‹ Prev
- 19
- 20
- 21
- 22
- 23
- 25
- 26
- 27
- 28
- 29
- Next ›
- Last »