Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a Constable in Delhi Police, filed the present OA questioning the legality and validity of the impugned Charge Memorandum dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A1) and the Summary of Allegations dated 23.08.2013 (Annexure A2). 2. The charge leveled against the applicant reads as under: It is alleged against Ct. Satish Chand, No.6234/DAP(PIS No.28892790) that on 19.06.2013, he along with Ct. Parmanand, No.1659/DAP was deployed on patrolling duty outside PHQ on the pavement from main gate to exit gate (X-17) and they were provided with WT sets. On that day, Inspector Ramesh Chander as routine, checked the staff detailed on duty at the various points of PHQ Guard and when at about 4 PM the Inspector noticed a motor-cycle was unauthorizedly parked at the pavement, he made search for the deployed staff who were found from their duty point. He called both the Constables through HC Kanwar Singh on W.T. sets and they were found coming from Exit Gate of PHQ. Wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. All these five Original Applications are almost identical and, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order. Facts in them which are necessary for their adjudication are detailed hereunder:- OA 4219/2011 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 14.3.2011 and the impugned Annexure A-2 order dated 11.5.2011 passed by the respondents. By the aforesaid show cause notice, he was called upon to explain as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police should not be cancelled. The reasons given for the same are as follows:- Scrutiny of your Application Form and Attestation Form filled up by you revealed that you had disclosed in the relevant columns of both the forms about the facts of your involvement in criminal case FIR No.39/2007, dated 15.02.2007 U/s 143/323/341 IPC, PS Laxmangarh, Distt. Alwar (Rajasthan) in which you had been acquitted by the Court vide order dated 04.12.2009 as both the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken: 1. The challenge in this Original Application is against the order dated 23.11.aggrieved by the impugned Annexure A-1 show cause notice dated 03.03.2011 proposing to cancel his candidature for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police. He is also aggrieved by the Annexure A-2 order dated 02.03.2011 by which his candidature has been cancelled. 2. This case was earlier heard and disposed of by a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its order dated 15.11.2011. In fact, this O.A was allowed and the respondents were directed to give appointment to the applicant to the post of Constable (Exe.) on the ground that his case was squarely covered by the earlier order of a co-ordinate Bench in Dharam Veer Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. (OA 164/2010) decided on 25.11.2010 having its operative part as under: 6. It is not possible to agree with the arguments of the Respondents in view of the fact that the candidature of the Applicant has not been cancelle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicants in this joint Original Application are serving as Senior Field Assistants(M) [SFAs(M) for short] and Assistant Field Officers(M) [AFOs(M) for short] in Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB for short) under the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are aggrieved by the alleged illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the Respondents in not giving them the Grade Pays of Rs.2400/- and Rs.2800/- respectively w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as given to their counter-parts serving in the various organizations under the Cabinet Secretariat. 2. The brief background of the case is that SSB was originally under the Cabinet Secretariat. From 14.01.2001, its administrative control was transferred to the Ministry of Home Affairs. However, the other similar organizations such as ARC, SSF and RAW continued to be under Cabinet Secretariat. All those organizations including SSB were having the posts of SFA and AFO and their pay scales from time to time were as under:-Details o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) MA 3625/2012: The applicant has filed the MA for condonation of delay in filing the OA No.4333/2012. He has stated in the said MA that on the permission of this Tribunal in OA No.399/2003, decided on 30.05.2003 (Annexure A12), he filed OA No.1755/2003 by challenging the Scheme of the respondents, i.e., New Recruitment and Assessment Scheme (NRAS), but the said OA was dismissed on 06.05.2004 on the ground of resjudicata. He further stated that the Honble High Court of Delhi dismissed the WP(C) No.10394/2004 and 23790/2005, which was filed against the said decision of this Tribunal dated 06.05.2004, vide its Judgment dated 23.05.2011, which was also upheld by the Honble Supreme Court in SLP (C) Nos.25894-95 of 2011 vide its order dated 24.09.2012. 2. However, the applicant stated that, in the present OA, the applicant has challenged the constitutional validity of another Scheme of the respondents, i.e., Merit And Normal Assessment Scheme (MANAS) and its Circular...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Dr. B.K. Sinha, Member (A). 1. The instant dispute relates to reckoning of the services rendered by the applicant during his employment with the Indian Navy for the purpose of retiral and other consequential benefits. The applicant has filed this OA before this Tribunal when his repeated representations produced no result. The applicant has sought mainly the following reliefs:- (a). Allow the present Original Application filed by the applicant and issue directions to the respondents for grant of ex-servicemens benefits (initial pay fixation on jointing IB and counting of Naval service towards civil pension etc.) by taking cognizance of Certificate of Verification of Military Service of Ex-Sailor issued by previous employer, i.e., Indian Navy along with all consequential benefits including, interest @ 18% (p.a) on the arrears of above; (b).Award interest @18% for 3 years on the amounts of Rs.34,751/-(Rupees Thirty Four Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty One only) and Rs.59,097/- (Rupees Fifty...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. This case was filed by the applicant on 03.06.2013, and it was listed before the Vacation Bench on 04.06.2013, when notices were issued to the respondents on admission, and also on interim relief, and the case was ordered to be listed before the Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013. It may be noted here that though the Vacation Benches of this Tribunal are headed by single Members of this Tribunal, they exercise all the powers of Division Benches. 2. The Vacation Bench on 07.06.2013 considered the case of the applicant for grant of interim relief in detail, and disallowed the prayer for interim relief. 3. Thereafter, an MA No.1865/2013 came to be filed by the applicant on 19.07.2013, reply to which was also filed by the respondents, and the OA along with the MA, was heard in part firstly on 13.08.2013, and finally on 18.09.2013, and then reserved for orders. Voluminous documents of the relevant departmental records were submitted by the respondents, which have sinc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral), Syed Rafat Alam, Chairman, J. 1. At the outset, a preliminary objection is taken on behalf of the respondents about the maintainability of this Application before the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant belongs to the combatized service of Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) and is working as Assistant Commandant (Medical Officer) and thus, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance of the applicant pertaining to his service conditions under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.2. We have heard learned counsel for applicant and respondents and considered the objections raised on behalf of the respondents regarding maintainability of this Application before the Tribunal. This issue has already been dealt with by this very Bench in OA No.2055/2012 with connected OA No.3322/2012 vide order dated 13.09.2013, wherein we have held as under:- "32. No doubt that the post of DIG is a Combatized (GD) post, but the fact remains that this issue has to be consi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. The applicant of this OA is an officer of Delhi and Andaman Nicobar Islands Civil Service (DANICS, in short), who is before us with the following prayers:- (a) direct the respondents to consider and promote the applicant on adhoc basis to the excadre post equivalent of DANICS w.e.f. 19.10.2011 and if in the event he is not found fit on the said date, then w.e.f. 14.11.2012 with all consequential benefits and grant all benefits consequent thereto to the applicant as being given to his juniors consequent to their promotion vide order dated 19.10.2011 or 14.11.2012 (as the case may be). (b) award costs of the proceedings and (c) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as Grade-II/Delhi Administration Subordinate Services (DASS, in short) on 14.08.1986. He was promoted to DASS Grade-I o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J). 1. The applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the impugned Memorandum dated 14.03.2014 issued by the M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs. According to the said memorandum, sanction has been accorded by the President under sub-clause (i) of Clause (b) of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Central Civil Services (Pension Rules, 1972 for instituting departmental proceedings against him. Accordingly, they proposed to hold an inquiry against him in accordance with the procedure laid down under Rule 14 and 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 2. The brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was General Manager in the Naval Armament Depot, M/o Finance, Department of Economic Affairs, he took voluntary retirement from there w.e.f. 10.08.2006. Thereafter, he joined Security Printing and Minting Corporation of India Ltd. (SPMCI for short) and from there also he superannuated on 31.01.2013. Thereafter, the Respondent No.1, namel...
Tag this Judgment!