Delhi Court March 2014 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.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Sh. Jai Pal and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on March 25, 2014 + W.P.(C) 4007/2001 MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI Represented by: ..... Petitioner Ms. Amita Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Ramakant Tripathi, Advocate versus SH. JAI PAL AND ANR. Represented by: ..... Respondents Mr.Pramod Gupta, Advocate with Mr.Umakant Kataria, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO V.KAMESWAR RAO, J.(Oral) CM No.17231/2013 (for restoration) This is an application filed by the petitioner-Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed in default on October 04, 2013. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. W.P.(C) 4007/2001 1. The challenge by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi in this petition is to the award of the Industrial Tribunal dated February 23, 2000 passed in I.D. No.56/1991 whereby the Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference made by the appropriate...
inder Raj Malhotra Vs. Canara Bank and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
$~6 * + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:25. h March, 2014 LPA472007 INDER RAJ MALHOTRA Through: ..... Petitioners Mr. Rajiv Garg with Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, Advocates versus CANARA BANK & ANR. Through: ..... Respondent Nemo CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL JUDGMENT SANJIV KHANNA J.(ORAL) R.P.146/2014 in LPA472007 1. This is an application for review of the decision dated 01.02.2007 by which the LPA. No.47/2007 was dismissed. The applicant had preferred a Special Leave Petition against the said decision, which was disposed of vide order dated 17.01.2014 by the Supreme Court recording as under:Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to approach the High Court by filing a review petition. The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. We express no opinion on the merit of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has sub...
Meenakshi Bhatia, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
1. The applicant had filed OA No.520/2011 seeking compassionate appointment following the death of her mother working in the office of the respondents. This OA was disposed of by this Tribunals Order dated 23.08.2011. The operative pare of this Order reads as under: 7. Having heard the rival contentions, I find that the applicants case has been considered only once not three times and she having become major to be considered for the purpose of compassionate appointment. She was considered by the respondents for compassionate appointment only for the year 2006-07. As per the extant rules, the respondents are duty bound to consider the case of the applicant and three opportunities have to be given to her seeking compassionate appointment. The facts of the case would reveal that the applicant has not been considered on further opportunities on compassionate appointment for the years 2007-08, and 2008-09. Accordingly, respondent No.2 is directed to consider the applicants case for subseque...
inspector Ram Singh, Delhi Vs. Govt. of Nctd Through the Commissioner ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J). 1. As can be abridged from the pleadings and the documents on record, one Mr. Rajender c/o Vikas Travels, Delhi made a complaint regarding unauthorized encroachment in the area of PS Subzi Mandi and on enquiry through ACP/PG Cell/North District, Delhi it could be brought out that there were many rehries/patries from Mori Gate round to telephone exchange and heavy encroachment had taken place. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North District called upon the applicant and ASI Sunder Lal No. 5127/D (Divisional Officer) to put forth their explanation within seven days, as it was their primary duty to remove the unauthorized encroachment from the site and they failed to do so. The applicant submitted his reply to the explanation memo taking a stand that he had always remained sensitive towards the problem of encroachment and its removal whenever noticed by him during the patrolling or through complaints. According to him, the encroachment was removed from t...
Mahatma Mahto, New Delhi Vs. New Delhi Municipal Council (Ndmc) Throug ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
A.K. Bhardwaj, J. The applicant was appointed in New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) as Junior Stenographer in the year 1994 against a vacancy reserved for scheduled tribe. On 9th January 2014, the Chairman, NDMC (disciplinary authority) issued a notice for his removal from service, thus he filed the present Original Application praying therein: (A).Quash / Set aside the Notice bearing No.88/ Vig./Imp./ IOV-II (M)/13 dated 09.01.2004 issued by the Chairman/ Disciplinary Authority, NDMC; (B).Pass such other order/orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 2. Mr. Mohit Kumar Shah, learned counsel for applicant contended: i). the impugned show cause notice is violative of principles of natural justice and suffers from the vice of procedural defects/unfairness, ii). the action of respondent No.2, i.e., Chairman, NDMC is within the teeth of the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil and another v. Additional Co...
Rakesh Chander Verma, Delhi and Others Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ( ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
P.K. Basu, Member (A). 1. Facts and question of law involved in both the OAs being similar, they are disposed off together by a common order. 2. The respondent no.1 issued order dated 12.09.2005 regarding grant of financial upgradation on completion of 12/24 years of regular service under ACP to Stenos/ PAs in the field units in the restructured IDA pay scales introduced with effect from 1.01.2004. Vide order dated 6.09.2006, in compliance of aforesaid order dated 12.09.2005, the Applicants were granted upgraded pay scales of Rs.11875-17275/- with effect from 1.01.2004. However, vide order dated 20.08.2007, the benefits granted to the applicants under the ACP Scheme vide order dated 12.09.2005, were withdrawn. The applicants sent legal notice seeking upgradation in the cadre of Personal Assistant because they were working in the CDA pay scale of Rs.5500-9000/- and thus claimed that were entitled to be restructured as Personal Assistant as per order dated 20.02.2004. The order dated 20....
Asha Nautiyal, Uttrakhand and Others Vs. Ravi Mohan Sharma
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. MA No.451/2013, for joining together, is allowed. The applicants, who are 11 in number, are working as Class-IV employees with the respondent-CPWD and belongs to the categories of SC/ST. 2. The respondents vide OM dated 26.07.2011 invited applications for Departmental Promotion Examination under 10% Departmental Examination Quota from Peon (Chaprasi) to Lower Division Clerks. In the said Notification, it is mentioned that there shall be two sets of question papers in the examination, and a candidate shall be declared as qualified, if he/she obtained 50% marks in each paper and 50% marks in aggregate. The candidate belongs to SC/ST shall be declared qualified if he/she obtained 40% marks in each paper and 40% marks in aggregate, among other things. 3. Since the applicants fulfilled the required eligibility criteria, have applied, in pursuance of the said notification, and participated in the selection process. However, they could not secure the required 40%...
R.P. Bhardwaj, Sonepat (Har) Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
1. The applicant superannuated as Zonal Director, Nehru Yuva Kendra Sangathan, Bhubneswar (Odisha) on 31.08.2011 and has claimed through this OA interest for the period of delay in payment of his gratuity and commutation of pension @ 18% p.a. 2. Before his superannuation, a complaint against the applicant had been received on 19.08.2010. The applicant was granted provisional pension only, because of the said complaint. The respondents issued a show cause notice to the applicant on 15.07.2013. The applicant submitted his reply on 01.08.2013. The case against him was closed on 07.10.2013 and gratuity and commuted value of pension were released to the applicant on 10.10.2013. Learned counsel for the respondents during the course of the arguments submitted that a charge sheet was issued on 15.07.2013, but failed to show the same despite request. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that there was pending on the date of his retirement neither any departmental proceeding nor any crimi...
Hari Bhajan, Ghaziabad (Up). Vs. Union of India and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The applicant of this O.A. joined on the post of Cataloguer on 26.08.1991 in the pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 (4th CPC) in the National Biofertiliser Development Centre, NBDC under the Ministry of Agricultrue. The Government of India, Ministry of Finance issued an O.M. No. 19(1)/IC/86 dated 24.07.1990 introducing uniform designations and pay structure for Library Staff under the purview of Government of India. Since the applicant thought that he was also covered by this O.M., he submitted a detailed representation to the respondents for his placement in the revised grade of pay on 06.10.1994. However, it was after several representations and reminders that the applicants scale was revised to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 03.03.1992 vide order dated 18.01.2002. Even then the respondents did not assign the designation of Library and Information Assistant to the applicant. The applicant requested for the same between the period from 21.02.2002 to 05.09.2002 but his requ...
Vijay Ram Srivastava, Haryana Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Decided on: Mar-25-2014
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the punishment imposed on him following an inquiry and is seeking the following relief:- (i). To quash the impugned orders dated 14.02.2012, 07.01.2010 and 09.10.2009 as illegal and unconstitutional. (ii). To issue direction to the respondents to give all the consequential benefits to the applicant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant joined Railways as Ticket Collector on 10.08.1981. Gradually he got promoted on different dates and rose to the level of Deputy Chief Inspector of Tickets in 2004 in the Pay Band of Rs. 9300-34800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/-. On 30.09.2008 he was served with a charge sheet pertaining to an incident of 29/30.11.2007. The charges contained in the charge sheet were as follows:- Article of charges framed against Shri Vijay Ram Srivastava HD. TEE/EE/N.Rly. while working in train No. 4033 Ex PNP to LDH manning the coach NO.A/1.B/1 and B/2 on 29/30.11.2007 had committed serious irregular...
- ‹ Prev
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- 15
- 17
- 18
- 19
- 20
- 21
- Next ›
- Last »