Delhi Court January 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 60 of about 723 results (0.021 seconds)Punjab National Bank Vs. Mrs. Meena
Court: Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
S.C. Jain? (Member) 1) The present appeal has been filed against the order dt.25.02.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VII, Sheikh Sarai-II, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. DF-VII/434/06. 2) The brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant is having a joint saving account No. 011026 with her husband Sh. Kiran Pal Maan in Nangloi, Delhi, Branch of Punjab National Bank.? Since the opening of the account the respondent/complainant got issued only two cheque books in their name from the appellant/OP bank, one cheque book bearing No. 278851 to 278860 and other cheque book bearing No. 658041 to 658060.? The cheque book bearing No. 278851 to 278860 had already been exhausted by the respondent/complainant and the respondent/complainant is using the cheque book containing the serial No. 658041 to 658060 and apart from these cheque books sometimes the complainant used the loose cheque also issued by the OP bank from time to time proper record for the sam...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. S.P. Singh, Ex. Director Esic, Meerut Cantt and Another Vs. Union ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. MA-315/2012 has been filed for joining together in one application. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. 2. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- œ(i) That this Honble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this application and direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants for being given the benefit of NFSG with PB-4 Grade Pay of Rs.8700/- which had been duly approved by the Ministry of Labour and Employment vide notification dated 3.2.2009. (ii) That this Honble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent to give all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and re-calculate the retirement benefits of the Applicants and make the payment of arrears, together with interest thereon. (iii) That this Honble Tribunal may further be pleased to grant any other or further relief to the Applicants as the Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Facts of t...
Tag this Judgment!Sh. Gopal Kumar Mishra, Purnea (Bihar) Vs. Union of India Through Gene ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- That the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 20.12.2010 (a/1) declaring to the effect that the same is illegal and discriminatory and is not a correct compliance of the Hon ble CAT, judgment dated 21.07.2009 and consequently pass an order directing the respondents to consider the applicant for his alternative appointment to any other post in the grade of Rs.4500-7000, other than ASM, for which he has been declared medically fit i.e. for A-3 and below category, at the earliest within a prescribed period. 2. Facts of the case are that the applicant responded to an advertisement issued by Railway Recruitment Board, Chandigarh in the year 2006 inviting applications for various posts including the post of ASM in the pay scale of Rs.4500-7000. The applicant appeared in the written test and was selected in the same. His name was placed in the panel which ...
Tag this Judgment!Rampal, Ghaziabad (U.P.). Vs. Government of Nct of Delhi Through Its C ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(ORAL): 1. In the instant Application, the short grievance of the applicant is that though he retired w.e.f. 28.02.2011 from the post of Sweeper, Full Time, on attaining the age of superannuation, but his retiral dues including pension have not been paid. 2. I have heard Mr. V. K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sh. N. K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder have been exchanged between the parties and are on record. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant was appointed as Sweeper in the year 1969 in SKV Model Town, Delhi and thereafter transferred to various other schools and ultimately retired from Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Mandoli, Delhi. However, despite various efforts made by the applicant, the respondents have not fixed his pension nor released the other retiral dues. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents drew my attention to the averments made in the cou...
Tag this Judgment!Chitra Mukundan Post Graduate Teacher (Commerce), New Delhi Vs. Union ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J) 1. In this Original Application, the Applicant has challenged the Annexure-A Office Order No.F.11042/1-1/2012-KVS(Estt.I) dated 15.11.2012 issued to her by the Respondent No.3 rejecting her representation dated 19.10.2012 addressed to the 2nd Respondent requesting modification of their earlier order dated 01.10.2012 posting her on appointment as Principal at Kendrya Vidyalaya (K.V. for short), Churchandpur followed by the modified Office Order dated 19.10.2012 posting her at Silchar. She is also aggrieved by the subsequent Memorandum dated 31.12.2012 withdrawing her offer of appointment itself on her failure to join duty at Silchar within the prescribed time limit. 2. The relevant facts in this case are that the Applicant has been working as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT for short) (Commerce) and she was posted at K.V. Gole Market, vide order dated 10.03.2000. During the course of her employment, she applied for the post of Principal in Kendriya Vidyalayas...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs. Saroj Ashok Kumar Yadav, Gurgaon Vs. Union of India, Through Secr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Raj Vir Sharma, Judicial Member: 1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: œi) To quash and set aside the impugned letter/order dated 17.10.2011 and direct the respondents to transfer the applicant to Delhi Zone with all benefits. To direct the respondents to give similar treatment to the applicant as given to Sh.Gaurav Yadav, Central Excise Inspector and other similarly placed persons by transferring her to Delhi Zone as per terms and conditions as mentioned in letter dated 27.03.2009. To allow the O.A. with costs. Any other reliefs as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.? 2. The brief facts of the applicants case run thus: The applicant was a Senior Tax Assistant in the Commissionerate of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I. While she was posted as such and working as Inspector on ad hoc basis in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, OB...
Tag this Judgment!Ms. Rashmi Sharma, Delhi Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary/Dgeandt ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Raj Vir Sharma, Judicial Member: 1. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: i. allow the present application and set aside the impugned order of recommendation, selection and appointment of the respondent no.3 as Vocational Instructor (Architectural Draughtsmaship) with the respondent no.2 in the interest of justice. Direct the respondents to make appointment of the applicant for the above said appointment. Any other and further order/s as this honble court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. The brief facts of the applicants case are that she possessed the following academic and technical qualifications and working experience: i. Passed 10th class in 1997 from CBSE. ii. Passed 12th class in 2009 from National Institute of Open Schooling. iii. Passed BA from University of Delhi in May-June 2011. Passed 3 years Diploma in Architectural Assistantship in June 2001. Passed...
Tag this Judgment!Rakesh Chaudhary, Ghaziabad Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Chie ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA is an officer of Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Service (DANICS, in short), who is before us with the following prayers:- (a) direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant on adhoc basis to the excadre post equivalent of DANICS w.e.f. 19.10.2011 and if in the event he is not found fit on the said date, then w.e.f. 14.11.2012 with all consequential benefits and grant all benefits consequent thereto to the applicant as being given to his juniors consequent to their promotion vide order dated 19.10.2011 or 14.11.2012 (as the case may be). (b) award costs of the proceedings and (c) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as Grade-II/Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS, in short) on 14.08.1986. He was promoted to DASS Grade-I o...
Tag this Judgment!M/S M.S. Engineers India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Cce and St, Noida
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Archana Wadhwa, J. 1. Out of total confirmed service tax demand of Rs.2,38,77,104/-, the appellant has already deposited an amount of Rs.91,20,091/-. By treating the same as sufficient for the purpose of Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, we dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of balance amount of service tax and entire amount of interest and penalty imposed upon them. Further, as we find that the impugned order of the Commissioner relates to the various basic issues, which do not stand considered by him in a proper manner, we proceed to decide the appeal itself. 2. As per facts on record the appellant is engaged in providing construction services at Nodia as also at various other places located in Maharashtra. They entered into a contract with M/s Jaypee Greens for providing their services for construction of residential complex. They got themselves registered with the Service Tax Department for providing the said services. The demand in the present case relates to service ...
Tag this Judgment!Vikas Aggarwal, Haryana Vs. Union of India Through Through General Man ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Kumar, Member (A) 1. The applicant in this OA is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 18.05.2011 by which the respondents have passed an order to the effect that in compliance of the judgment in OA No.1663/2010, the show cause notice dated 16.03.2011 to Shri H.K.Bhogal (Respondent No.6) is treated as cancelled and the panel of JE-II/tele (IQ) prepared and issued on 19.12.2007 as per the Railway Board Circular dated 16.11.1998 and as per judgment in the matter of M. Ramjayaram Vs. GM, Central Railway (1996 (1) SC SLJ 536 by the Honble Supreme Court, has been sustained. 2. According to the applicant, he had joined Northern Railway on 14.10.88 as Tech-III and promoted to the post of Cable Jointer-II (CJ-II) on 27.12.1999 (Annexure-B) where he is still working. According to him, Respondents Nos.4 and 5 were appointed as TCM Grade-III in the grade of 3050-4590 vide letter dated 1.9.2003 and Respondent No.6 was appointed as TCM-III ON 1.6.1991. Applications were invited for the post o...
Tag this Judgment!