Delhi Court September 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.
Uttam Chand, A.S.i. Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through C.P. Delhi M. ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (A): The applicant in this OA is ASI in Delhi Police. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the applicant on 5.10.2009. The enquiry was completed as per procedure and in his enquiry report dated 7.06.2010, the enquiry officer found charges no.1, 2 and 3 proved and charges no.4 and 5 partly proved. Copy of the enquiry report is at annexure A-6. A copy of findings was supplied to the applicant vide letter dated 2.08.2010 and thereafter applicant submitted his detailed representations/submissions on 25.08.2010. After consideration of his reply, the impugned orders dated 17.01.2011 were passed by the disciplinary authority awarding major penalty of withholding two increments temporarily for a period of two years. The applicant filed his appeal dated 12.02.2011 and the appellate authority vide order dated 12.05.2011 rejected the appeal of the applicant. Aggrieved by this, the present OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- “i) To call for t...
Ms. Shobha Kandpal Vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
G. George Paracken: The grievance of the applicant in this Original Application against the Respondent-All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS for short) is that her service has not been regularized by them in terms of the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in V.L. Chandra Kumar and Others vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others, (1990) 3 SCC 38, implemented by the respondents in all other cases. Her further grievance against it is that in contradiction of her rights, it has now issued Vacancy Notice and the consequent advertisement for filling up the post of Medical Social Service Officer Grade-II by direct recruitment. She has, therefore, sought the following reliefs and interim reliefs in this OA:- “8. In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore, prayed that in view of the facts and circumstances above-stated this Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to; a) direct the respondent to regularize the applicant to the post of Medical Social Se...
Sh. Saroj Khosla and Others Vs. Shri Amit Singla, Director of Educatio ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) : On behalf of the respondent, an order dated 3.8.2012 of the Delhi High Court in the Writ Petition (C) No.4370/2012 (Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others vs. Saroj Khosla and others) is produced before us. As per this order, notices have been issued, returnable on 28.1.2013. Further the respondents’ counsel No.1 and 2 in the said Writ Petition has submitted that he would not press the Contempt Petition in the Tribunal in the meanwhile. 2. In view of the above, learned counsel for the applicants does not press this CP with grant of liberty to revive it at an appropriate stage. 3. Accordingly, CP is disposed at this stage with grant of liberty in the aforesaid terms. Notice is discharged. 4. MA 2013/2012 has also been rendered infructuous....
Shri Anil Kumar Vs. the Secretary, Bureau of Energy Efficiency and Ano ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
(Oral) Sh. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) The case set up by the applicant is that he was engaged on contract basis as Web Manager on 03.07.2006 and his contract period was extended till 30.09.2011 without any break. The grievance of the applicant is that his contractual appointment has not been renewed after 30.09.2011 and in place of him another candidate has been engaged. On this ground, the applicant has filed OA before this Tribunal praying that a direction may be issued to the respondents to re-employ him on the post of Web Manager. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant. From the record, it is evident that the applicant has sent a legal notice through his counsel to the respondents on 15.06.2012 thereby highlighting his grievance. 3. Thus we are of the view that it will be in the interest of justice if a direction is given to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant at the first instance. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the prese...
Sazid Ali and Others Vs. Suleman and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
G.P. Mittal, J. Oral: 1. These three Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 03.10.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while deciding the issue of negligence, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident was caused on account of contributory negligence of the milk tanker No.DL-1GA-5548 driven by the First Respondent and of deceased Shakur Ahmed, who was driver of the Maruti car No.DL-7C-0001. 2. Shakur Ahmed and two more occupants of the car suffered fatal injuries whereas two other escaped with minor injuries. The Claims Tribunal apportioned the contributory negligence to be 70:30 vis--vis the deceased Shakur Ahmed and Suleman, the First Respondent. 3. Since common question of law and fact is involved in all the three Appeals, the same are taken together for disposal. 4. The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellant:- (i) The Claims Tribunal erred in holding that there was contributory negligence on the part of deceased ...
Baljit Singh Bahmania Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Sep-03-2012
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby his original application being O.A. No.4154/2011 has been rejected on the ground of limitation as well as on the ground of nonjoinder of all the affected persons. 2. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal seeking the following reliefs:- “a) quash seniority list circulated vide O.M. dated 01.08.2011 to the extent applicant has been placed at sl. No.791 therein; and b) direct the respondents to accord the applicant his due seniority and place him below Sl. No.557 and above Sl. No.558 in the seniority list circulated vide O.M. dated 01.08.2011; and c) direct the respondents to accord all the consequential benefits to the applicant w.e.f. the date when his juniors in the cadre of AE (Civil) have been accorded such benefits; and d) pass any such further order or direction as may be deemed fit, proper and necessary....
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- Next ›