Delhi Court May 2014 Judgments
Home Cases Delhi 2014 Page 8 of about 438 results (0.020 seconds)Ashu, Noida and Others Vs. Union of India (Represented by Secretary to ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). All these O.As are identical and hence are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of OA-3396/2013 are being discussed. This has been filed seeking the following relief:- (i). Call for records leading to Office Memorandum 21/13 (Ref: HRD/R/02 dated 06.08.2013 annexed herein as ANNEXURE A1; and quash and aside ANNEXURE-A1 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14,16,19 and 21 of the Constitution. Call for records leading to Letter No. 1(2)/2013-HR dated 10.09.2013 and e-mail communication dated 24.10.2013 annexed herein as ANNEXURE-A7; and quash and aside ANNEXURE-A7 as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles, 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Direct the Second and Third Respondents to extend the contracts of the Applicants on the expiry of their present contracts on the strength of the annual performance reports. Direct the Second and Third Respondents to consider the case of the Applicants ...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Sudhakar Sharma Vs. U.Oi. and Others
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V.N. Gaur, Member (A). 1. The applicant was appointed as Secretary, Lalit Kala Akademi (LKA) on 03.04.2001. He was suspended through an order dated 14.02.2013 issued by Assistant Secretary (Admn.) of LKA with the approval of the Chairman, LKA, Sh. K.K.Chakravarty, who took over the charge of the post on 13.02.2013 as per respondents version. That suspension order was revoked by another order of same date, i.e., 14.02.2013 signed by Shri K.R.Subbanna, Acting Chairman, LKA who according to the applicant was legally authorized to exercise the powers of Chairman, LKA since the new Chairman Sh. K.K.Chakravorty joined his office on 15.02.2013. Otherwise also, the suspension order dated 14.02.2013 had not been reviewed within 90 days of the date of issue of that order, and therefore, it automatically lapsed after the expiry of 90 days. The respondents, however, by an order dated 14.06.2013 revoked the suspension order and issued a fresh suspension order on the same date after the matter had b...
Tag this Judgment!Rama Nand Vs. A.K. Sachan Divisional Railway Manager, 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 3.1.2013 in OA 4031/2012. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:- 7. Turning to the other contentions of the respondents that Rule 219 (M) duly protects the interest of employees who are on deputation abroad. In this connection, we pertinently note that the applicant has been admittedly appointed on deputation to Mozambique from 11.3.2008 to 27.4.2011. Pleadings are amply clear on the factual aspect that on his return from Mozambique, the applicant was posted to New Delhi on 07.05.2011. It is also the admitted position that the notice for adjudging the suitability for the purpose of promotion to the post of Sr. PWS of various Mates/Keymen was issued only after the applicant had already returned from Mozambique. Therefore, the applicant was also duly entitled to be considered and promoted to the post in question as p...
Tag this Judgment!Sreeranganathan K.P., Sreepadam Vadakkkekkottaram (H) and Others Vs. t ...
Court: National Green Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
M. Chockalingam, Judicial Member) Appeal No. 172 of 2013 (SZ) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein against the order of the 1st respondent, Ministry of Environment and Forests (for short MoEF) dated 18.11.2013, granting Environmental Clearance (for short EC) to the 4th respondent, M/s. KGS Aranmula Air Port Ltd., to set up an airport at Mallappuzhasserry, Aranmula and Kidangannur villages in Kozencherry taluk of Pathanamthitta District, Kerala. A writ petition has also been filed in W.P. (C). No. 6004 of 2012 challenging the notification issued by the 2nd respondent, the State of Kerala declaring the area as an industrial area and the said writ petition is still pending before the Honble High Court of Kerala. The brief facts of the appeal filed herein are stated as follows: 2. The proposed airport is being set up by the 4th respondent on the banks of the holy river Pampa, in an ecologically sensitive and environmentally diverse and rich area. Aranmula is a declared he...
Tag this Judgment!Birendra Singh and Another Vs. Union of India Through the Secretary, N ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The Applicants in this joint Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 challenged the impugned Annexure A-1 letter dated 15.02.2012 issued to the Applicant No.1 by the Respondent No.2, namely, the Office of the Custodian, The Special Court (TORTS) Act, 1992, Banking Division (Department of Financial Services), Ministry of Finance, New Delhi. By the aforesaid letter his request for transfer of the amount in his GPF Account and counting his past service under Rule 13 and 25 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 and FR 54 and 54A has been rejected for the following reasons:- (i). Your services have been terminated from this office and you have been re-employed in the office of Debt Recovery Tribunal, Chandigarh on the instructions of Honble Cats order dated 09.12.2005. In the said order, there are not instructions regarding counting of your previous service in this office. However, you may apply your current...
Tag this Judgment!Bharat, New Delhi Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, New Delhi and Anoth ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the show cause notice dated 24.08.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 by which the applicant has been required to show cause as to why his appointment should not be terminated under Para 9(b) of the Executive Instructions. According to the applicant, he has been working as a Driver with respondent no.2 since 12.03.2009. However, he was restrained from performing the duties w.e.f. 24.5.2013. He gave his representation to the same but despite the receipt of the representation, the respondents issued Show Cause Notice dated 24.8.2013. He has filed the present OA wherein following reliefs have been sought:- i). set aside the impugned show cause notice No.SPD/PFC (DR)/2013/5221 dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure-A-1) passed by respondents and direct them to allow applicant to continue his duty in the department; ii). direct the respondents to call for verification report of the driving licence No.M-...
Tag this Judgment!Bharti Papnai Pandey, Delhi Vs. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection B ...
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. 2193/2013 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for joining together, is allowed. 3. The O.A. is filed seeking a direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the applicants vide Annexure A-5 (Colly.) seeking grant of age relaxations issued under various orders of the Govt. of India and under Govt. of NCT of Delhi being women or resource persons of SSA, as the case may be, in connection with the Advertisement No.01/12 for the post of Special Educator (Primary) in MCD, Post Code No. 01/12, as their applications made in pursuance of the said Advertisement have been rejected, on the ground of overage, without assigning any specific reasons. 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 2nd Respondent to consider the representations of the applicants and to pas...
Tag this Judgment!Bijay Kumar Verma Vs. Consortium for Education Communication, New Delh ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. The applicant has filed this OA against the order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the Consortium for Education Communication (An Inter University Centre of University Grants Commission on Electronic Media) IUAC (NSC) Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi and Director Governing Board Consortium for Educational Communication (An Inter University Centre of University Grants Commission on Electronic Media) IUAC (NSC) Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi and others. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant on the question of jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application. He agreed that the respondent Consortium for Education Communication is not a notified Organisation under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which reads as under:- (2). The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities...
Tag this Judgment!Dharmendra Kumar (Staff Nurse), New Delhi Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The applicant, who is working as Staff Nurse in the Sardar Vallababhai Patel Hospital, New Delhi, filed the present OA questioning the Order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure A1) of the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate (Seelampur) in directing him to surrender his OBC Certificate dated 14.01.2010 (sic. 4.01.2010) which was cancelled by Order dated 03.05.2012, to his office. 2. It is submitted that the applicant hails from Village, Kolida, District Sikar, Rajasthan and belongs to Jaat Community which is recognized as Backward Class. On his application, in pursuance of an Advertisement No.004/2009 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, in short), he was selected to the post of Staff Nurse under OBC category, and accordingly, he joined at Sardar Vallabhabai Patel Hospital, New Delhi. 3. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Seelampur, Delhi vide the impugned Annexure A1 Order dated 08.08.2013, while informing that ...
Tag this Judgment!Naveen Kumar Sharma, New Delhi Vs. Union of India Through the Secretar ...
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The present RA is filed by the applicant under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking to review the Order dated 06.03.2014 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.323/2013. 3. The scope and power of this Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is limited and akin to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. As per the settled principles of law while exercising the power of review, correction of an erroneous view taken earlier is not permissible. 4. The Honble Apex Court in Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and Others - (1999) 9 SCC 596 held that power of review available to the Tribunal under Section 22(3)(f) is not absolute and is the same as given to a Court under S. 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.. It has further held that the scope of review is limited to correction of a patent error of law or fact whi...
Tag this Judgment!