Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 38 of about 438 results (0.011 seconds)Dileep Singh Vs. Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, M (J) The Applicant is an Ex-Serviceman who was discharged from Army after having rendered 17 years and 4 months of service. His grievance in this Original Application is that the Respondents have ignored the rules and regulations issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training for granting reservation to Ex-Servicemen in his case. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Department of Personnel and A.R. vide Notification No.39016/10/79-Estt.(C ) dated 15.12.1979 issued the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rule 1979 for resettlement of Ex-Servicemen. According to the said notification, certain percentage of vacancies in some of the Central Government services is reserved for being filled up by the Ex-Servicemen and for some of the vacancies, age relaxation and fee exemption have been given to them. Para 4 and 5 of the said Notification reads as under:- œ4...
Tag this Judgment!Lac Rahul Chandra Kapari Vs. Uoi and Others
Court: Armed forces Tribunal AFT Principal Bench New Delhi
R.C. Mishra, Member (J): 1. This is titled as an application under Section 15 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, calling in question the order dated 8th April 2013,passed by AOC in C (training)Command, rejecting the pre-confirmation appeal under Rule 16(1) of the Air Force Rules, 1969.But, in essence and substance, it is an appeal against the order passed by District Court Martial at Air Force Station, Hakimpet on 25th February,2013 convicting the applicant, of the offences punishable under Sections 52(a) and 71 of the Air Force Act 1950 and imposing sentences of Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and dismissal from service. 2. The prosecution story, in short, may be narrated as under: - A. On 1st May 2012,finding the Syndicate Bank ATM cum Debit Card no. 4033983022319545 ( for brevity ?ATM Card?) missing, Complainant Mohit Kumar (PW-1) informed the Customer Care Department of the Bank about non-traceability thereof. Since the Bank was closed on that day, it was on the 2nd May, ...
Tag this Judgment!Sheeja Santosh and Others Vs. the Director General Esic Headquarters P ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicants are working as Staff Nurses in different Hospitals under the Respondent No.1, namely, the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC for short). Their claim is that they are entitled for the minimum pay of Rs.13860/- and Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- making their basic pay of Rs.18460/- as per the fixation table for Rs.7450/- with bunching being done as applicable w.e.f. 01.01.2006. In the alternative, they have sought a direction to the Respondents to grant them at least the minimum of Rs.12540/- and the Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- making it Rs.17140/- w.e.f. 01.01.2006 as an interim measure, as has been granted to the direct recruits who joined the cadre as Nursing Staff as on 01.01.2006 till a decision by the Respondent No.1 on the issue of grant of basic pay of Rs.18460/- is taken. 2. They had earlier approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 1865/2012 seeking the aforesaid reliefs. This Tribunal, vide its order dated 28.05.2012, directed the Respondents t...
Tag this Judgment!Murlidhar and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretary, Departm ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Following relief has been sought in this O.A.:- œThat the Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned orders dated 5.12.2011, 16.12.2011 and 23.12.2011 (Annexure.A/1 to A/3) by which the respondents merged the post of Assistant Director (Bio-Chemistry, earlier junior Biochemist, with the post of Assistant Director (Chemistry), declaring to the effect that the same is illegal, arbitrary and against the rules.? 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicants were working as Assistant Director (Chemistry) in the Central Insecticide Laboratory (in short CIL) in the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperation. According to them the next promotional post for them is Dy. Director (Chemistry), then the Joint Director (Chemistry) and further Director (Chemistry). They have submitted that there were five posts of Scientific Officer in Chemistry Division whose pay scales were revised to Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay of Rs.5400 ...
Tag this Judgment!Chandrika Prasad Sonkar, Ex-ward Member, Madhya Pradesh Vs. Union of I ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dalip Singh, Judicial Member 1. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the Applicant sought to raise the issue with regard to violation of the conditions of the EC dated 4th June, 2013 granted to the intervener by SEIAA. Since, the original letter petition filed before the Honble High Court did not contain any such averment with regard to the issue now sought to be raised during the course of hearing and even the project proponent not having been made a party/respondent, what was only permitted to intervene once and the application filed by the project proponent before the Honble High Court the project proponent has also indicated in the application that no illegal activity is being carried out by the project proponent but has only carried out the work in accordance with the EC granted to him. 2. In that view of the matter, the issues which are now sought to be raised during the hearing, the project proponent cannot be taken by the element of surprise. Even otherwise, in c...
Tag this Judgment!Wansla Bainsla Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi Through Its Secretary (Edu ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
P.K. Basu, Member (A): The applicant is working as a teacher in Central School (Kendriya Vidyalaya) since December 2002. She applied for the post of PGT (English) in pursuance of advertisement issued by the respondents and received the offer of appointment dated 18.10.2004. As per the requirement of offer of appointment, she underwent medical examination on 27-28.01.2005. The doctor detected some defect in her eye. The applicant clarified that she had undergone treatment for retinal detachment of right eye in 1992 and pseudophokia of left eye in 1989 i.e. after the surgeries. The applicant has completed her education B.Ed., M.Ed. etc. Thereafter, she joined Kendriya Vidyalaya and has been working as a teacher since then. For the present PGT post, after series of medical tests (also ordered by the Honble High Court), the respondents issued letter dated 11.05.2009 declaring her `unfit. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to quash medical report dated 8.04....
Tag this Judgment!Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and or ...
Court: Delhi
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % + Judgment delivered on:07. 05.2014 W.P.(C) 663/2014 MADHYA PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD ..... Petitioner versus PUNJAB & SIND BANK & ORS. ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner : Mr Sakesh Kumar. For the Respondent: Mr Rajender Wahi, Advocate for R-1. Ms Suparna Srivastava, Advocate for R-3 & 4. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU JUDGMENT S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (ORAL) 1. By the present petition, Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPSEB) impugns an order dated 15.10.2013 passed by Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal (DRAT). In terms of Madhya Pradesh Reorganization Act, 2000, State of Chattisgarh claims to be a necessary/interested party in the matter and submits that it has moved an application for impleadment before DRAT, which is pending. In these circumstances, the learned counsels appearing for State of Madhya Pradesh, State of Chhattisgarh and also the counsel for...
Tag this Judgment!Mrs.Alka Puri Vs. State
Court: Delhi
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Test Cas No.42 of 2006 Decided on : May 07 , 2014 MRS.ALKA PURI Through: Petitioner Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta with Ms.Sahiba Pantel, Advs. Versus Respondent STATE Through: None. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI V.K. SHALI, J.1. This is a petition for grant of Letters of Administration in respect of the estate of deceased Ravindra Nath.2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that the present petitioner has claimed herself to be an adopted daughter of late Ravindra Nath and late Smt.Saroj Sharma. It has been alleged in the petition that Ravindra Nath expired on 29.12.2005 while as Smt.Saroj Sharma expired on 30.12.2005. The aforesaid deceased couple did not have a natural child and, accordingly, when the present petitioner, who was just 13 years old was adopted being the Saroj Sharmas sisters daughter. This was done to look after the deceased persons during their old age.3. It has been further alleged in the petition that after an adoption deed ...
Tag this Judgment!P P Vaidya and ors Vs. Ifci Ltd. and ors
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA7862013 & CMs 16643/2013, 5110-5112/2014 Reserved on :23. d April, 2014 Date of decision :6. h May, 2014 % P P VAIDYA & ORS Through ..... Appellants Mr. Vishnu Mehra with Ms.Sakshi Mittal, Advs. versus IFCI LTD. & ORS Through ..... Respondents Mr. Dinkar Singh, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA JUDGMENT J.R. MIDHA, J.1. The appellants are the erstwhile officers of the respondent who opted for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme 2008 dated 1st February, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as VR Scheme) on 25th February, 2008.2. On 19th February, 2011, i.e. almost three years of taking voluntary retirement, the appellants filed the writ petition to claim an incentive under Scheme of Performance Linked Incentive (hereinafter referred to as SPLI) for the financial year 2007-08 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge and is under challenge in this appeal. Factual matrix 3. The s...
Tag this Judgment!Deepak Mohan Sethi Vs. Bses Rajdhani Power Ltd. and anr
Court: Delhi
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on :20. h March, 2014 Date of decision :6. h May, 2014 % + LPA3082013 DEEPAK MOHAN SETHI Through ..... Appellant Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate versus + BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR..... Respondents Through Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advocates for BSES/R-1. Ms.Anjana Gosain & Mr.Pradeep Desodya, Advocates for R-2. LPA3092013 S.P. CHAWLA Through ..... Appellant Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate versus + BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD. & ANR..... Respondents Through Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. Anjan Sinha & Ms. Shruti Choudhri, Advocates for BSES/R-1. LPA3102013 BANWARI LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advocate versus NORTH DELHI POWER LTD. & ANR..... Respondents Through Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Abhay Kumar, Advocate for NDPL/R-1. Mr. D. Rajeshwar Rao, Mr.Charanjeet Singh & Mr.Vikran Kaushik, Advocates for R-2. + LPA3122013 CHANDER BHAN SHARMA ..... Appellant Through Mr. Vimal Wadhawan, Advo...
Tag this Judgment!