Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
(Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, AM) In this OA, the applicant prays for a direction to the respondents at Sl Nos.1-4 to treat the promotion granted to him as Assistant Foreman in the 4 Tier Structure w.e.f 11.3.2003 to be treated as promotion to the post of Senior Foreman in the 3 Tire Structure since there was vacancy and he was eligible for the same. 2. The facts of the case briefly stated, the applicant joined the Southern Naval Command in the cadre of Chargeman-I, re-designated later as Foreman on 26.7.99. He passed the qualifying test for Senior Foreman on 26.12.2001. On completing 3 years service as Foreman he was eligible to be promoted as Senior Foreman w.e.f 1.1.2003. Meanwhile, Govt of India on the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission introduced 4 tier structure for the Technical Supervisory category in different establishments on 26.12.01. The table below shows the comparative structure of the Technical Supervisor cadre before 26.12.01 and after 26.12.01. Before 26.12.01 ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Dr. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant was working as a Post Graduate Teacher (PGT) at Kendriya Vidyalaya, Kozhikode. According to him, certain staff members were not comfortably poised with him, consequent to which some false and baseless complaint was launched against the applicant through a girl student hailing from andhra Pradesh alleging certain indecent behaviour. A fact finding inquiry was conducted which resulted in a summary trial and termination of service of the applicant with effect from 31.03.1995. The applicant was never informed of any of the details, much less was he handed over the alleged complaint and least was he called upon to give any statement. Thus, ignoring and by passing all norms of principles of natural justice, an arbitrary order of termination was passed. The said order has been totally cryptic. The applicant challenged the said order before the High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 5929/05 wherein, the respondents took up a stand that the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Dr. K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The three O.As having one single issue, all the three are dealt with in this common order. For purposes of reference, it is O.A. No. 159 of 09 is taken as the pilot case. 2. Brief facts: The applicants are aspirants for the post of Post Graduate Teachers in Higher Secondary Schools in U.T. Of Lakshadweep on regular basis. 3. The Lakshadweep Education Department (Post Graduate Teacher) (Group 'B' Non Gazetted) Recruitment Rules, 1993 provide for 50% by Direct Recruitment and 50% by promotion, and, failing both by deputation including short term contract. 4. By an order dated 06-02-2003, the Government of India had granted approval for creation of 103 teaching posts of which, 8 are at the post graduate teacher level, with the erstwhile pay scale of Rs 6,500- 10,500/-. These posts were thus created by the Administration in March, 2003. 5. Earlier, in 1996 on the basis of certain government of India orders, regularization of ad hoc teachers/contrac...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
The applicant is challenging his transfer to Bangalore as violative of the "transfer policy" of the department. 2. The Applicant is a Senior Auditor in the Defence Accounts Department working in the Accounts Office (RandD), NPOL, Thrikkakara, Kochi from September 2001 onwards. Earlier he had served two tenures in hard areas at Port Blair and andaman Nicobar Islands each for tenure of more than two years. His sister who is mentally incapacitated is depending on him consequent on the death of the legal guardians -the parents. He has now completed the age of 54 years. While so, the applicant was issued with an alert notice for transfer out side Kerala which was challenged by him before this Tribunal through O.A No. 333/2009. The Tribunal disposed of the O.A. directing the respondents to consider the representation submitted by him in conformity with the present guidelines relating to transfer. In this Application, the applicant is challenging Annexure A-1 transfer order and A-2 speaking o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE MRS. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicants who are working as Catering Assistants in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas in the Kerala Region, challenge the denial of appropriate pay scale and special allowance as has been recommended by VI CPC and non fixation of their working hours. 2. The applicants submitted that the mess workers like the Catering Assistants work for about 18 hours a day without enjoying Sundays and holidays. A Catering Assistant has to take care of the food requirement of about 600 students. As per the statutory recruitment rules, the minimum educational qualifications was Senior Secondary School with three year Diploma in Hotel Management and Catering. However, this was modified to Secondary School with three year Diploma. Though they were placed under teaching cadre, subsequently they were changed to non-teaching cadre. According to them, they are identically placed with the Catering Assistants working in Oak Grove School under the Railway Minist...
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
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The facts in brief: One Shri C. Sekaran was functioning as Sr. Trackman in Tirupur Railway Station and while in service he expired on 24-05-2001. He had a family consisting of his wife and a daughter. The applicant in this OA is the second wife of the said C. Sekaran and the second applicant is the son born to the said C. Sekaran and the first applicant. It is the case of the applicant No. 2 that his status as a legitimate son of the said C. Sekaran has been recognized by the Railways when it granted certain facilities including the benefit of privilege passes, medical facilities and family pension etc., At the time of the demise of C. Sekaran, the second applicant was only a minor and he could attain the age of a major just recently and thus with the hope that in the same way, the applicant would be granted compassionate appointment as per the extant scheme, he applied for grant of compassionate appointment. However, his case was turned down...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ213CAT
1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant aggrieved by A-2 order dated 20.4.98 of the first respondent imposing upon him the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect for six months and A-4 order dated 29.12.98 of the second respondent as Appellate Authority rejecting his appeal and confirming the penalty imposed on him. He sought the following reliefs through this O.A.: (a) call for the records leading upto Annexure A-4 and quash Annexures A-2 and A-4. (b) declare that the applicant is not guilty of charges II and V shown in Annexure A-1. (c) direct the respondents to give promotion to the applicant to HS-I notionally w.e.f. 6.4.1995, with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant was a Mechanic Highly Skilled-II in the Naval Air Craft Yard (NAY for short) under the respondents. He was one of the Joint Consultative Machinery (JCM) IV Level member of HQ. Southern Naval Command. During 1994 he was the Secretary of the NAY Unit Works Committe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ360CAT
1. The applicant, an orthopaedically handicapped unemployed youth, was sponsored by the Vocational Rehabilitation Centre, Trivandrum (A-1) for selection to the post of unskilled Labourer under the Headquarters, Southern Naval Command, Cochin against 3% quota reserved for the physically handicapped (A-2). The applicant thereafter sent aduly filled and verified attestation form (A-3). The applicant who was given to understand that he was selected, did not get appointment though 2 similarly selected candidates were appointed. He claims to have made enquiries at the Southern Naval Command, Cochin, when he is said to have been informed that he would soon receive appointment orders.Repeated enquiries entailed similar promises but no appointment order was issued according to the applicant. The applicant made a representation A-5 dated 18.6.99 to the 1st respondent. There was no response to that either. The applicant is aggrieved by the respondents' failure to issue appointment order to him a...
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!