Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Smt. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member The applicant challenges the Annexure A-1 order dated 7th May, 2008 modifying the penalty of reduction of pay from Rs. 8100/- to Rs. 6500/- in the time scale of pay of Rs. 6500-200-10500 for a period of one year on the applicant, imposed vide order dated 10.5.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Cochin to that of "dismissal from service". 2. The applicant is approaching the Tribunal for the fourth time. The brief facts of the case are as follows. According to the applicant, while working as Customs Officer in Mangalore Customs House during 1990, on receiving secret information from informer, he seized an Arab dhow carrying bricks of silver worth about Rs. 5.8 crores and Arab Dhow worth about Rs. 84 lakhs on 17/18.12.1990. Since the quantum of the informer award was a huge amount, there was vigilance investigation in this regard and the applicant was served with Memorandum of charges alleging that he fabricated false document and attempted...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1 The applicant is aggrieved by Annexure A-V order issued by the 2nd respondent imposing penalty of removal from service and appellate order Annexure A-VII issued by the 3rd respondent dismissing the appeal and confirming the penalty of removal from service imposed on the applicant. 2 Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that he did his apprenticeship in the Naval Dockyard Apprentice School from 7.3.1977. On completion of apprenticeship he was appointed as H.Skl. (Grade-I) in the Naval Dockyard, Visakhapattanam on 21.6.1978. It is stated that he was suffering from severe Arthritis problem and had to remain on medical leave in loss of pay on several occasions. It is submitted that the applicant had put in 20 years 2 months and 19 days of service excluding the apprentice-ship period of 1 year 3 months while he applied for voluntary retirement. He applied for voluntary retirement on 8th Aug.1998 requesting to relieve him on 8th Se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ205CAT
1. The applicant who has been working as Senior Chargeman at the Naval Ship Repair Yard. Kochi, is aggrieved by A-1 order dated 12.3.2002 restricting the backwages payable to him to 75% of the actual pay for the period from 14.12.98 to 7.8.2001. He is also aggrieved by the inordinate delay in paying even the admitted amount.2. It would appear that by A-2 order dated 19.6.2001, this Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had set aside the penalty order dated 14.12.98 whereby the applicant had been removed from service and the appellate order dated 10.5.99 confirming the penalty so imposed.However, this Tribunal in the said order had made it clear that the 1st respondent therein was at liberty to proceed in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule 21(a) of Rule 14 and forward the enquiry report and its findings to the competent higher Disciplinary Authority for an appropriate action. The 2nd respondent thereupon issued A-3 order reinstating the applicant in service with effect f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Mrs. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member The applicant, the eldest son of deceased employee of the Naval Store Depot, Naval Base, Kochi, seeks compassionate employment under Employees Dying Harness Scheme. 2. According to the applicant, his father expired on 19.4.2000 while working as Artist Painter under the respondents. At the time of death, the family of the deceased employee consisted of wife, two sons and a married daughter. As they have no landed property except 5 cents of land, a small hut worth Rs. 15000/-, the applicant with all necessary documents submitted application for employment on compassionate ground (A2). The grievance of the applicant is that the respondents failed to consider his case and rejected the same after 7 years. Hence, he is challenging the rejection order at Annexure A-8 on the grounds that the respondents have not considered the factual situation of the case, the order was passed after 7 years delay, the recommendations of the Committee constituted under...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. As the facts in these three Applications are similar and the issue raised is the same, these Applications were heard together and disposed of by a common order. 2. For convenience, the facts in O.A. 596/2009 is discussed. The applicants are aggrieved by the malfeasance and non-feasance on the part of the respondents in not reckoning the regularised period of casual services rendered by them for the purpose of granting Time Bound Promotion. 3. The applicants were appointed as Telephone Operators Grade- II on casual basis in the Southern Naval Command on different dates, later all of them were regularised in service from the date of absorption. Aggrieved, they filed O.A. 2144/93 which was allowed based on the orders in identical cases. Pursuant to the above, the applicants were granted regular appointment w.e.f their initial appointment. On implementation of the ACP scheme the Headquarters Southern Naval Command issued order dated 17.11...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant challenges Annexure A-7 order dated 5.9.2007 rejecting her request for reckoning the casual service with intermittent breaks rendered by her for granting 2nd financial upgradation under the ACP scheme. 2. According to the applicant, she commenced service as a Casual Clerk on 17.3.1977 under the 4th respondent with intermittent breaks ( A1). Her service was regularised w.e.f. 3.4.1979 with all perquisites like leave, bonus etc. (A-2). She was promoted as UDC w.e.f. 23.7.1999 and was granted the 2nd financial up-gradation w.e.f. 7.10.2004. The grievance of the applicant is that had the casual service was taken into consideration, as was done in identical cases she would have got 2nd ACP w.e.f. 17.3.2001. She relied on the circular issued by the Ministry of Defence and the orders of this Tribunal in O.A. 434/89, 609/89, 545//95, 755/2000 and 732/2006 and the judgment of the High Court of Kearla in support of her claim. 3. The ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant filed this Application for grant of first financial upgradation under the ACP scheme w.e.f the date of completion of 12 years of service instead of from the date of passing the Qualifying the Departmental test. 2. The applicant is presently working as a regular unskilled labourer in the Base Victual ling Yard, Naval Base, Kochi. He was initially engaged as a casual labourer. While working so, his services were terminated on 20.6.1988 which was challenged before the Labour Court Ernakulam. The Labour Court allowed the Petition and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and to place him senior to those who were juniors to him at the time of termination of service. The High Court upheld the Award of the Labour Court. Based on the Award and judgment of the High Court he was reinstated and his services were regularised w.e.f. 1.2.1991. But, instead of granting 1st ACP on completion of 12 years of service on 1.2.2003, ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1 The applicant is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents to draw and disburse family pension to her. 2 The applicant states that she is the eldest and unmarried daughter of late N.J.Hilari, a Pump Operator of MES at Naval Base, Cochin who died while in service on 7.8.2005. The deceased left behind two daughters and a son. At the time of death of her father the applicant was 19 years, her younger sister 18 years and brother 14 years of old. The applicant's mother predeceased her father on 7.11.2004. Being the eldest daughter the applicant was granted family pension w.e.f 8.8.2005 and was continuing to draw the same till May 2010. It is further stated that the applicant's younger sister is married and the applicant is unmarried. It is averred that dependent unmarried daughter is entitled to continue to draw family pension till her marriage or she starts drawing income more than the prescribed limit. The applicant became 25 years...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicants, Radio Operators in the Telecommunication wing of the respondents department are aggrieved by Annexure A1 order to the effect that they may be withdrawn from the section of the main stream where they stand deputed now. 2 Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are that the Telecommunication wing is a dying cadre hence this wing was not included in the restructuring process of the respondent department and likely to be closed down. Presently the applicants are working in the main stream of the respondent department. Even though they are working in the main stream but restrained to participate in the examination for promotion to the post of Inspectors. The 1st applicant has filed OA 634/2005 before this Tribunal seeking modification of the recruitment rules to enable consideration of Radio Operators to the post of Senior Tax Assistants in the ministerial wing and for further promotion as Inspector of Central E...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
By Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member - 1. Miscellaneous Application No. 1061 of 2011 is for condonation of delay in filing the Review Application. Heard both sides. Miscellaneous Application is allowed and the delay is condoned. 2. The ground for review is that as per Annexure RA-1 the applicant is to be considered for the vacancy of Senior Administrative Officer that arose during the year 2004-2005, the only vacancy of Senior Administrative Officer that arose during 2004-2005 sanctioned by the Ministry of Defence vide letter dated 29th December, 2004 and that the said vacancy was pertaining to Naval Academy, Ezhimala. True copy of the letter of Ministry of Defence is Annexure RA-2 dated 29th December, 2004. According to them RA-2 was omitted to be brought to the notice of this Tribunal at the time of hearing of the OA, resulting in RA-1. Therefore, the RA-1 order is sought to be reviewed by the applicants (respondents Nos. 1-3 in the OA). 3. Thus, the ground for review i...
Tag this Judgment!