Delhi Court September 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 Niwas and Another Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicants are working as Civilian Motor Drivers in the Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt. under the Ministry of Defence. Through this OA, they are challenging the action of the respondents in withdrawing a higher pay scale granted to them since the year 1999/97 along with orders for recovery of excess amount allegedly paid to them. The impugned order dated 30.11.2011 is under challenge. This is the second round of litigation. 2. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “a) quash and set aside the impugned Central Ordinance Depot letter No.3531/Docus/CMD/Estt/N1 dated 30-11-2011 (Colly) and directions to Respondents not to reduce the salary. b) declare the action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the salary of applicants illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and directions to refund the amount already deducted. c) pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circums...
Mithilesh Kumar and Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission, Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: As the main issue involved in all these OAs is identical, they are being disposed by this common order. The common issue of law raised for our adjudication is the legal sustainability of non-consideration of candidature as an OBC on the ground of the Caste Certificate, in the prescribed format, not being submitted within the cut off date, in contravention of the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement Notification. To be even more specific, the issue centres around the non-creamy layer certificate not being within the prescribed time limit of the preceding 3 years of the cut off date. 2. The applicant in the OA No.3985/2010 is represented by Shri R.K. Sharma and the applicants in OA Nos. 3244/2011 and 3245/2011 by Shri Subhash Mohanty. The respondents’ counsel in all these OAs is Shri S.M. Arif. We have given detailed hearing to the learned counsels on both the sides and also carefully considered the material on record. 3. The claims in all these OAs have a...
Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Defence and Another Vs. A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
(ORAL) : MA No.2496/2012 This MA is filed for condonation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of some days in filing the RA is condoned. RA No.269/2012 2. The present review application has been moved by the respondents in OA No.1693/2012 seeking to recall the order dated 17.05.2012 passed in the aforesaid OA. The grounds taken by the review applicants are mainly based on the following averments: the original applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands as certain material facts relevant for adjudication of the case has been concealed and not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.05.2012. 3. Notice in the RA was issued to the original applicant on 13.09.2012. It is noted that service is complete. Despite the completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the review respondents. However, Shri R. N. Singh, Senior Central Government counsel for the review appl...
Madhav Prasad Vs. State
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
ORDER P.K.BHASIN, J. 1. The petitioner-accused is a municipal counsellor having contested and won the municipal council elections held on 15th April, 2012. He has filed this application for his release on bail in a murder case registered against him at the police station at Delhi Railway Station(Main) on 11th April, 2012 vide FIR No.43/2012. 2. The petitioner was contesting election to be held on 15th April, 20102 to become a municipal counsellor and was holding a pre-election meeting at the Azadpur Railway Station platform on the night of 10th April, 2012. During that election meeting some people from the crowd were claiming that the petitioner had done nothing during his last stint as a counsellor while the petitioner was claiming that he had done much work. Upon that a quarrel took place and during that quarrel the petitioner and one of his supporters Anil Yadav allegedly caught hold of one Jai Parkash while one Pinku (alleged to be the petitioner’s driver) had stabbed him wi...
Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Defence and Another Vs. A ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
(ORAL) : MA No.2496/2012 This MA is filed for condonation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of some days in filing the RA is condoned. RA No.269/2012 2. The present review application has been moved by the respondents in OA No.1693/2012 seeking to recall the order dated 17.05.2012 passed in the aforesaid OA. The grounds taken by the review applicants are mainly based on the following averments: the original applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands as certain material facts relevant for adjudication of the case has been concealed and not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.05.2012. 3. Notice in the RA was issued to the original applicant on 13.09.2012. It is noted that service is complete. Despite the completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the review respondents. However, Shri R. N. Singh, Senior Central Government counsel for the review appl...
Mithilesh Kumar and Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission, Through Its ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: As the main issue involved in all these OAs is identical, they are being disposed by this common order. The common issue of law raised for our adjudication is the legal sustainability of non-consideration of candidature as an OBC on the ground of the Caste Certificate, in the prescribed format, not being submitted within the cut off date, in contravention of the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement Notification. To be even more specific, the issue centres around the non-creamy layer certificate not being within the prescribed time limit of the preceding 3 years of the cut off date. 2. The applicant in the OA No.3985/2010 is represented by Shri R.K. Sharma and the applicants in OA Nos. 3244/2011 and 3245/2011 by Shri Subhash Mohanty. The respondents counsel in all these OAs is Shri S.M. Arif. We have given detailed hearing to the learned counsels on both the sides and also carefully considered the material on record. 3. The claims in all these OAs have arisen o...
Shri Ram Niwas and Another Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Mini ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicants are working as Civilian Motor Drivers in the Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt. under the Ministry of Defence. Through this OA, they are challenging the action of the respondents in withdrawing a higher pay scale granted to them since the year 1999/97 along with orders for recovery of excess amount allegedly paid to them. The impugned order dated 30.11.2011 is under challenge. This is the second round of litigation. 2. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- a) quash and set aside the impugned Central Ordinance Depot letter No.3531/Docus/CMD/Estt/N1 dated 30-11-2011 (Colly) and directions to Respondents not to reduce the salary. b) declare the action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the salary of applicants illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and directions to refund the amount already deducted. c) pass such other or further order as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the ...
Sgt. J.S. Bansal Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
ORDER 1. This case was filed by the petitioner as CWP No.3776/1996 in the Honble High Court of Delhi. After promulgation of the AFT Act, it was transferred to this Tribunal as T.A. No.253/2009. 2. The petitioner vide this petition has prayed for restoring his assessment in the ACR for the year 1995 in which he was assessed as Excellent by Wg, Cdr D. Mathew which was subsequently reduced to Satisfactory by respondent No.5 i.e., Commanding Officer 704, SU, Air Force under whom the petitioner did not work even for a single day for the assessment year 1995. The petitioner has also prayed that he be considered for promotion to the rank of Junior Warrant Officer w.e.f. 01.12.1994 i.e., the date since when his juniors were promoted to the rank of Junior Warrant Officer. He has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the Air Force Order No.1/91 dated 23.02.1991 and the policy letter regarding revised criteria for promotion to airmen issued on 16.11.1989. The petitioner further prayed to qu...
Col Deepak Bahadur Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Sep-24-2012
ORDER 1. This OA No.17/2012 was filed on 10.01.2012. Vide this petition, the petitioner has sought directions for respondents to remove the assessment of IO and ROs in the CRs for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 on the grounds of non-objectivity and to consider the petitioner afresh for promotion as per rules consequent to the new profile. 2. The applicant was commissioned on 09.03.1981 in the Army Medical Corps. He was promoted to the rank of Colonel in December 2005. Thereafter, he was posted as CO, Military Hospital, National Defence Academy (NDA), Khadakwasla from 28.05.2006 to 04.10.2008. 3. On 24.11.2009, his first Promotion Board for Colonel to Brigadier was held in which he was not empanelled. On 05.02.2010, he preferred a statutory complaint. He was granted partial relief in the ACRs of 2006 and 2007 on 27.10.2010. Thereafter, a Review Promotion Board was held on 12.11.2010, in which again he was not empanelled. 4. On 28.01.2011, the petitioner preferred a fresh statutory compl...
Raj Kumar Jha and Others Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Minist ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-21-2012
OA Nos. 2135/2012, 2136/2012 and 2137/2012 filed by applicants questioning the order dated 25.06.2012 whereby they were transferred from NCT of Delhi to DDandDHI, AandNI and Lakshadweep were disposed of in terms of order dated 3.07.2012 with a direction that the representation, if any, preferred by applicants within one week would be decided by respondents expeditiously. Respondents were also directed not to give effect to the transfer order qua the applicants till disposal of said representations. Pursuant to said order, applicants made separate representations dated 9.07.2012 raising the common plea and praying for cancellation of their transfer ordered in terms of order No.14020/2/2011-UTS-II (Part file) dated 25.06.2012. The representations were addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Relying upon the guideline for transfer of posting of DANIPS officer, rules 12 and 13 of DANIPS Rules, 2003 and letter dated 23.06.2012 of DD and DNH administration ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »