Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 3 of about 438 results (0.008 seconds)Ex. Ptr Om Prakash Budania Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
1. The petitioner stands convicted by Summary Court Martial vide Order dated 28.12.2001 awarding him punishment of one years rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this case certain facts need to be stated. 2. The petitioner was enrolled in the regular army as a combatant soldier on 20.02.1998. After completion of his military training he was attested on 14.04.1999 at Bangalore. He was posted to 10 Para on 16.06.1999 for commando course. Having failed to complete the commando course, he was sent back to Bangalore Para Centre in the month of October 1999. He reported to Admn Coy Office of Para Bn on 21.04.2000 and was sent for Para jumping course for one month. 3. The petitioner was detailed for guard duty on 25.08.2000 alongwith six Jawan,s Guard Commander Hav Gian Singh and Asstt. Guard Commander L/Nk Ramesh Chander. He was on duty from 2400 hrs to 0200 hrs on 26.08.2000. Rifle Butt Nos.173 and 170 were issued to Hav Gian S...
Tag this Judgment!Sayeeda Begum Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through Its Commis ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, J. 1. On receipt of request from the Directorate of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi / Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) invited applications for the posts of Assistant Teacher /Teacher (Primary) vide Advertisement Nos.07/07 and 08/07 under post code Nos.164-165/07 and Teacher (Primary) Urdu under post code No.166/07. In terms of the provisions of Recruitment Rules for the posts notified on 8.5.2006 and 13.7.2007, the age for the post was reduced from 32 (Male)/ 42 (Female) to 20-27 years. The cut-off date for submission of the applications was 29.10.2007. The rules were challenged before the Honble High Court of Delhi. In the meantime, the examinations for the post was conducted on 15-16.6.2008 by the Board. The petition filed before the Honble High Court was disposed of on 28.8.2008 with the following directions (as provided in page 61 of the paper book): To conclude the language and marks crit...
Tag this Judgment!Ramakrishna Dutta, Directorate General of Inspection Customs, New Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. In the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought issuance of directions to the respondents to disburse his salary since July, 2012 onwards. Nevertheless, during the course of arguments, Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the respondents have already started paying him salary from October 2012 and the only left out controversy in the present Original Application is non-payment of salary for the months of July, August and September, 2012. She submitted that during the said period the applicant was present on duty and did not mark his presence, as being Stenographer Grade I he was exempted from doing so. 2. To buttress her submissions, Mrs. Oberoi referred to Brochure of sanctioned strength of posts and vacancy position in different grades in Central Excise and Customs formations (Annexure A-12) to show that the posts of Senior P.A. / Stenographer Grade I are one and the same....
Tag this Judgment!M/S. Jaypee Infratech Ltd. Vs. Amit Kumar, Uttar Pradesh and Others
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M.S Nambiar (Judicial Member): 1. This application is for review/modification of the final order dated 03.04.2014 passed in original application no. 58/2013 filed by respondent No. 11/ Noticee no. 34 (M/s Jaypee Infratech Ltd.). By order dated 03.04.2014, the original application was disposed of giving certain directions making it clear that the decision taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) based on those directions will be subject to the final decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The O.A. was filed praying for a direction against the respondents to prevent illegal and unauthorized construction works undertaken by the developers within a radius of 10 Kms. from the boundary of the Okhla Bird Sanctuary. While the original application was pending, by interim order dated 28.10.2013 based on the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 04.12.2006 in "Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India". It was held that any new project which is being considered for the purpose of issuance...
Tag this Judgment!H C Vijay Singh Vs. Govt. of Nctd Through the Commissioner of Police, ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, M (J): 1. Vide notice dated 28.07.2010, the applicant was called upon to show cause as to why his conduct of not taking action against unauthorized construction at C-26, 3rd Floor, Roof of 11, open space in front of J-81 of the Dilshad Colony be not censured. In reply to the notice, the applicant explained that at the relevant point of time he was posted at Beat No. 10 and thereafter he was deployed in Beat No. 9 in the month of May. According to him, Beat No. 9 includes DDA Quarter New Seema Puri, ABDC Block of Dilshad Garden and in the said beat no authorized construction has taken place. Having considered his reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order No. F.XVI/302/2010/484-96 dated 12.01.2011 confirming the show cause notice and censuring the conduct of the applicant as well as SI Shishu Pal, Constable Sh. Vijay and Constable Sh. Sewa Singh.2. In the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority viewed that in the enquiry conduct by the PG Cell/NE on the compl...
Tag this Judgment!Arvind Kumar Meena, Rajastan Vs. Nct of Delhi Through the Special Comm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj, J. On his enrolment in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) as Constable, the applicant joined the basic training w.e.f. 8.10.2009. He availed four days CL w.e.f. 11.11.2009 to 14.11.2009 to appear in the interview for the post of Constable in Delhi Police. On being successful, he was appointed in Delhi Police where he reported for basic training on 8.1.2010. Before his joining the basic training for the post of Constable in Delhi Police, the resignation of the applicant from CISF had not been accepted, though applicant had sent a letter dated 19.12.2009 to the DIG/Principal, Regional Training Centre CISF, Tamilnadu (Annexure A-2) to resign from basic training and services in CISF. With reference to the said letter he was informed vide the communication dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure A-4) that he was required to appear personally at the training centre and deposit the training amount, Government dress and other equipment that were issued to him during training period and ...
Tag this Judgment!Harsh Singh, Nagpur and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). MA-1378 of 2014 1. This application has been filed for filing one application. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. OA-1378/2014 The applicants of this OA are candidates who successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination, 2012 and joined the National Academy of Direct Taxes (NADT), Nagpur for induction training as 67th Batch of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) since December 2013. They are aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in not permitting them to write the Civil Services Examination again in 2014 and also not granting them Extra Ordinary Leave for preparing for the same. They have, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:- i. That the present application maybe allowed and impugned order dated 29.03.2014 and 07/08.04.2014 be set aside. ii. That the respondents be directed to grant permission to applicants to apply and take CSE-2013 and further be granted Extra Ordinary Leave asked for preparing for such examinatio...
Tag this Judgment!V.S. Bhartiya, Working as Garrison Engineer Vs. Union of India, Throug ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J). 1. In this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: i). Declare that the applicant is not liable for any field service liability in terms of- the Civilian in Defence Services (Field Service Liability) Rules,1957; ii). Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01 Oct 2013; and iii). Direct the respondents to immediately post out the applicant from GE Khumbhathang, a declared field area to any other place which is not field; and iv).To award exemplary costs; and v). To pass any other order as this Honble Tribunal deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: The applicant was initially appointed as Superintendent Grade II (Buildings and Roads) in Military Engineer Services (MES), and he joined as such on 28.3.1988. Para 2(v) of his appointment letter contained a condition that he would be subject to Field Service Liability ...
Tag this Judgment!Brij Lal, Passenger Driver Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New D ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
1. As has been captioned in the present Original Application, the applicant was appointed in Northern Railway as Cleaner on 6.8.1977. He got promotions as Driver Assistant, Goods Driver and Passenger Driver in the years 1987, 1995 and 2005 respectively. While working as Passenger Driver, he was selected for the post of Crew Controller / Power Controller and was posted at Railway Station, Jind (Haryana). On being subjected to periodical medical examination, he was declared medically fit in Category A-I. Thereafter, respondent No.3 passed an order dated 3.12.2008 medically de-categorizing him and re-deploying as Crew Controller at Railway Station, Jind. On being medically de-categorized, his pay was fixed as per Railway Boards circular PS No.11528, in terms of which the medically de-categorized staff was to work as Crew Controller but given all the benefits of the Driver like pay, running allowance, seniority, promotion etc. Subsequently, when the respondents issued order dated 4.2.2013 ...
Tag this Judgment!R K. Sharma Vs. Union of India and Another
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
MA 452/2014 The applicant filed the Original Application No.749/2013 questioning the Order dated 7.1.2013 whereby he had been transferred from Delhi to Commissioner (Appeal), Kolkata Customs as also the orders dated 30.1.2013 and 20.2.2013 whereby his representations for cancellation of the transfer order were rejected. In the said Original Application, this Tribunal passed order dated 13.3.2013 staying the operation of the impugned order. Finally, the Original Application was disposed of in terms of the order dated 9.5.2013 with the following directions: 20. In the circumstances, OA is disposed of with direction to respondents to pass a fresh order indicating their articulated stand i.e. whether the transfer of the applicant is in deviation of clause 5.5 and 5.6 of the policy being warranted by public interest and administrative exigency or the same is in consonance with the provisions of the policy. Till then the applicant would not be forced to join as Commissioner (Appeal), Kolkala...
Tag this Judgment!