Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 10 of about 438 results (0.036 seconds)Hemlata Soni, Delhi Vs. the North Delhi Municipal Corporation Through ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). 1. None for the applicant. The Original Application is accordingly taken up for hearing in terms of Rule 15 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. 2. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying therein: That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant and against the respondent. Pass any other or further order(s) or direction(s) which this Honble Tribunal deems fit, proper and expedite in favour of the applicant and against the respondent, in the interest of justice. 3. In the counter reply filed on behalf of North DMC, it is stated that the case of the applicant would be placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee in its meeting to be held in the year 2014 along with all other similar cases received during the year 2013 for its consideration in accordance with the instructions issued by the DoPT. The contents of paragraph 4 of the counter reply read as under:- ...
Tag this Judgment!R.C. Meena Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Through Its Co ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J): 1. The applicant was appointed as Sub-Overseer Mistry (SOM) in Delhi Division of the Northern Railways on 20.10.1986. He got promotion as Inspector of Works on ad hoc basis w.e.f. 19/20.07.1989. Further he got regular promotion as IOW in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 w.e.f. 6.10.1995. He remained in the services of respondents till 30.08.1998 when he tendered his technical resignation to join as Assistant Engineer (Civil) under MCD through proper channel. He filed the present Original Application seeking issuance of direction to MCD to take into account the service rendered by him in the Railways from 20.10.1986 to 06.09.1998 for pensionary and other financial benefits. 2. In the short reply filed on behalf of the Corporation, it is stated that the letter No. F.16 (510)/CED (II)/99/15665 dated 23.09.2009 was sent by it to the Divisional Superintendent Engineer, Divisional Rail Manager, Northern Railways calling for certain queries in addition to original serv...
Tag this Judgment!Lt Col Vinod Kumar Mudgal Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In view of the objection raised by the Registry, heard on the question of territorial jurisdiction. 2. This is an OA, under Section 14 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 seeking the following reliefs:- 1) Declaration to the effect that the ACRs in question are technically invalid, 2) Quashment of the result of No 3 Selection Board qua the petitioner and 3) Direction to consider the case of applicant by No. 3 Special Review (Fresh) Selection Board and in the event of his being declared fit for promotion to grant all consequential benefits including no loss of seniority. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner is presently posted as a Lt.Col. at Meerut Cantt. and none of the ACRs was recorded or reviewed at New Delhi. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner, has strenuously contended that the order dated 04.02.2013 (Annexure A-1) rejecting the statutory complaint made by him against the non-empanelment and technically invalid ACRs, constituted a part of cause of action in terms of Rule 6(1)(ii) A...
Tag this Judgment!Om Parkash, Haryana Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi (South), Throug ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J): 1. The applicant filed Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying therein:- To direct the respondents to allow the applicant to resume his duty/service forthwith all consequential benefits; and To direct the respondents to release the salary and arrears of salary and other entitlements of the applicant along with 24% interest; and The applicant further prays for imposition of exemplary costs on the respondents for arbitrarily denying the applicants right to resume his duty after completion of medical sanctioned leave period. AND Such other order or orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant. There was a dispute regarding the joining and performance of duty by the applicant. When according to applicant, respondents had not allowed him to resume his duty, learned counsel for the respondents submitted at the Bar that i...
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Ardent Steel Limited, Odisha Vs. Ministry of Environment and Fore ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Swatanter Kumar (Chairperson): 1. In the present Appeal, the following short but interesting questions of law and public importance have arisen for consideration of the Tribunal: 2. Whether on its true construction and scope, a pelletization plant would fall under Entry 3(a) (Metallurgical industries) (ferrous and non-ferrous) of the Schedule to the Environmental Clearance Regulations, 2006 (for short 'Regulations of 2006'). 3. Eschew of unnecessary details, the precise facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the Appellant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its Office at Lotus Corporate Park, Western Express Highway, Goregaon East, Mumbai. The company is involved in the business of manufacturing of pellets for the 'stand alone' iron ore pelletization plant in Orissa. The plant is of 0.6 MTPA capacity. The company had applied for 'Consent to Establish' the plant which was granted by the State Pollution Control Board, Orissa (for short 'the Board') on 1...
Tag this Judgment!Sarika Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Board, Represented Through Chair ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. 2. It is the case of the applicant that in pursuance of an Advertisement issued by the respondents for selection to the post of Primary Teacher in MCD, Post Code No.16/08, she applied under ST category and participated in the selection process, and the respondents have found her qualified and selected vide their final merit list of candidates (Annexure D). However, till date the respondents have not issued the appointment letter to the applicant. 3. It is further submitted that the applicant submitted representation dated 14.02.2014 espousing her grievances. However, the respondents have not passed any orders thereon till date. 4. In the circumstances, the O.A. is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, without going into the other merits of the case, by directing the Respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order thereon, within eig...
Tag this Judgment!B.V. Gopinath, Hyderabad Vs. Sumit Bose, New Delhi
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 5.2.2009 in OA 800/2008. The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:- 23. Resultantly, OA is allowed. Impugned charge sheet is set aside. However, we make it clear that the documents served upon the applicant regarding transfer proforma are not in their complete shape, as the list of officers, who have also been considered, has not been served upon the applicant. In such an event, the liberty is accorded to the respondents, if so advised, to take appropriate action against the applicant but before doing so, the complete document at Sl.No.8 of the list of documents in the charge sheet shall be served upon him. Consequences in law shall ensue upon the applicant. No costs. 2. The Union of India challenged the aforesaid Order before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.10452 of 2009 but the same was di...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendar Kumar, New Delhi Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation, Thr ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, M (J): 1. As has been captioned in the Original Application filed by applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant joined corporation as Daily Wage Chowkidar and in terms of the Memorandum No. RPA-V-II/CED(C-I)/2011/4028 dated 02.09.2011, he was appointed as Chowkidar on regular basis. He filed the present Original Application seeking issuance of direction to respondents to release the arrear amount w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 31.10.2011.2. The only ground taken in the original application is that the Respondents have not implemented their own memorandum dated 16.09.2011. From the said ground, it appears that the applicant has claimed the difference of the remuneration received by him as Daily Wage Chowkidar and one admissible to a regular Chowkidar, as in terms of the aforementioned Memorandum dated 16.09.2011 his services were regularized w.e.f. 01.04.2005 to 31.10.2011. 3. Mr. Rajender Khatter, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporatio...
Tag this Judgment!Sharwan Kumar and Others Vs. the Secretary, Department of Social Welfa ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. No.1602/2014 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together, is allowed. 3. It is submitted that the applicants are working as Staff Nurse under the 2nd respondent for last about two years on contract basis. Now, the respondents, w.e.f. 13.05.2014 onwards, are not allowing the applicants to work, without passing any order. The applicants made representation dated 19.05.2014 requesting the 2nd respondent to continue them in service on the same terms and conditions, but the respondents have neither allowed them to work nor passed any orders on the said representation. 4. It is further submitted that the respondents are also contemplating to engage another set of contract employees in place of the applicants. 5. The Honble High Court of Delhi in its judgment dated 06.11.2013 in W.P.[C] No. 6798/2002 Sonia Gandhi and Ors vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.(supra) cons...
Tag this Judgment!Union of India the Secretary, New Delhi and Others Vs. Raj Pal. New De ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. This Contempt Petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging non-compliance of the Order of this Tribunal dated 5.2.2009 in OA 800/2008. The relevant part of the said Order reads as under:- 23. Resultantly, OA is allowed. Impugned charge sheet is set aside. However, we make it clear that the documents served upon the applicant regarding transfer proforma are not in their complete shape, as the list of officers, who have also been considered, has not been served upon the applicant. In such an event, the liberty is accorded to the respondents, if so advised, to take appropriate action against the applicant but before doing so, the complete document at Sl.No.8 of the list of documents in the charge sheet shall be served upon him. Consequences in law shall ensue upon the applicant. No costs. 2. The Union of India challenged the aforesaid Order before the Honble High Court of Delhi vide Writ Petition (Civil) No.10452 of 2009 but the same was di...
Tag this Judgment!