Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. In this OA, validity of Order dated 20th April, 2004 passed by co-ordinate Bench at Ernakulam of this Tribunal in OA No 134/2002, allowing Respondent No -3 OA No 134/2002, directing respondents NO 1-2 to place him in seniority list of Section Officer w.e.f. 31.5.1990, has been challenged. A That the official respondents be directed to produce the relevant records pertaining to the absorption of Respondents No 3 for the perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal. B That the judgment and Order dated 20.4.2004 passed by the Ernakulam Bench of this Hon'ble Tribunal in OA. NO 134/2002 be referred to a larger Bench/Full Bench and reconsidered/reopened and declared as unsustainable in law; and the consequent revision of seniority as envisaged vide O.M. dated 6.1.2005 be quashed and set aside. C That the initial appointment on deputation and subsequent absorption of Respondent No 3 be held as having been made not in accordance with the provisions of the relevant recruitment rules and therefore, bad ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)(2)SLJ214CAT
1. By present O.A., filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, applicant, belonging to Central Engineering Services Class-I, 1974 batch, is aggrieved by his non-empanelment to the post of Chief Engineer in Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred as CPWD) in the panel for the year 2004-05. He seeks direction to respondents to promote him from the date his immediate juniors namely S/Sh. S. Baliga and Vipin Chand were promoted to said grade with all consequential benefits, including arrears of pay and allowances, seniority etc., besides exemplary costs. He also seeks declaration that respondents' action not to promote him to said post merely based on minor penalty of withholding one increment for a period of one year without cumulative effect imposed in May, 2000 and thereby excluding him from the said panel, is illegal, arbitrary and furthermore the said punishment would not stand in his way of promotion.2. Admitted facts are that applicant was promoted ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2005)(2)SLJ1CAT
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 24.1.2001, imposing upon him a penalty of removal from service and also an order dated 27.8.2001 passed in appeal, upholding the punishment. Re-instatement with all benefits has been sought.2. Before adverting to the legal contentions and their adjudication a brief factual matrix leading to the filing of the O.A. is relevant to be highlighted.3. Applicant is a Physical Education Teacher (PET) and is General Secretary of the Rastriya Kendriya Vidyalaya Adhyapak Sangh (Jagat Singh) (hereinafter referred to as RKVAS (J)).4. The aforesaid association voices the demands and other ancillary problems faced by the teachers before the respondents. By letter dated 10.3.1998 Central Executive Committee of the RKVAS(J) which has met on 22.2.1998 raised demands pertaining to amendment in the pay scale of Primary Teachers, revision of the pay scale of PET of KVS at par with NDSI, grant of same pay scale to the Music Teachers as of TGT scale and grant of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. In this OA the applicant has challenged the decision of the respondents not to promote/appoint him to the post of Member, Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC, for short). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to convene a review meeting of the Selection Committee held in July 2006 and also in the first/second week of May 2007, to consider the case of the applicant on merit for promotion/appointment to the post of Member, CBEC, with consequential benefits.2. The bare facts of the case are deceptively simple. The applicant belongs to 1970 batch of Indian Customs and Central Excise Service.After getting various promotions, he was ultimately promoted to the rank of Chief Commissioner. The applicant has stated that in a meeting of the Committee of Secretaries (C.O.S., for short) held in July 2006 for the purpose of preparing a panel for promotion/appointment to the post of Member, CBEC, the applicant was not empanelled, while his juniors were empanelled. The applica...
Tag this Judgment!