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 MR. JUSTICE K.THANKAPPAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicants filed this Original Application, aggrieved by a letter dated 29th January, 2010 of the Commander, Public Information Officer, Southern Naval Command for and on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The said letter was addressed to the 2nd applicant and similar letters were also received by other applicants. 2. The Original Application has been admitted by this Tribunal and notices have been ordered to the respondents. In pursuance to the notices received, two reply statements have already been filed for and on behalf of the respondents. 3. We have heard the counsel appearing for the applicants Mr. T.C. Govindaswamy and Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose, learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. The main question to be answered in this Original Application is that whether the letter impugned by which selection process for recruitment of Telephone Operators has been cancelled is correct or not. F...
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 DR K.B. SURESH, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The applicant alleges that discriminatory procedure is adopted in her case since on similar issues while minor proceedings were initiated in identical matter relating to her major penalty proceedings were initiated. She would claim that she was singled out and placed under suspension and proceeded under Rule 14 only for the reason that she preferred a police complaint against one of the Investigating Officers who attempted sexual harassment on her. 2. Applicant would submit that she was asked to meet the Superintendent in the cabin of the Postmaster and that the Postmaster left immediately after she started writing her statement. She would thus allege that the statement was voluntary but that after she completed her statement, sexual advances was made to her and she lost her mental balance thereby and had to be hospitalised. She would now allege that this complaint has been the genesis for such hunting against her and she had been prejudiced t...
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 Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. The applicant in this O.A. had applied for the post of Unskilled Labourer in the Indian Naval Academy, Ezhimala, in the year 2009. He had qualified in the written test and had attended the interview. On not getting a call from the respondents regarding appointment, he sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, regarding details of candidates who are appointed in pursuance of the test conducted by the respondents in the year 2010 and the number of candidates who had attended the interview. In reply, he was informed that no such selection of Unskilled Labourers was conducted by the Naval Academy, Ezhimala, in July, 2010. Aggrieved, he has filed this O.A. 2. The applicant submitted that he was informed that he would be considered for appointment. The reply given by the respondents in response to the information sought under RTI Act is bound to raise serious doubt regarding the selection process. 3. In the reply state...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. These O.As have been clubbed together as the prayers are for the same relief and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. All the applicants were promoted from the posts of Assistant Foreman/Chargeman-II/Assistant to the posts of Foreman/Chargeman-I/ Office Superintendent , as the case may be, and their pay was fixed in the scale of pay of the promotion post under FR 22 (I) (a)(1). Their pay has been revised as per the provision of Civilians in Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 (CDS (RP) Rules, 2008, for short) read in conjunction with IHQ(MOD)(Navy) DCP letter CP(P)/8416/VI/CPC/Policy Corres dated 24.08.2009. Later steps were taken to recover the benefit of pay fixation already effected on their promotion . Aggrieved, the applicants have filed the above O.As mainly for a direction to the respondents not to recover the benefit of pay fixation granted to them on promotion to the present posts and for a declaration t...
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 Mrs. K. NOORJEHAN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER1. The applicants who are working as Unskilled Labourers, challenge Annx.A4 and Annx.A5 in so far as it proposes to fill up the posts of Semi Skilled Laborers (SSL for brevity) in Ammunition Repair and in Gun Repair by direct recruitment of SSL in preference to the applicants who can be promoted/absorbed in these posts in accordance with the recommendation of the VI Central Pay Commission.2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicants are that they are recruited as Unskilled Labourers (USLs for short) of the Armament Depot in Southern Naval Command. The applicants except V.R.Ragini (applicant No.20) and R.Santhosh Kumar (applicant No.15) were appointed on 28.6.2007, V.R.Ragini on 23.8.96 and R.Santhosh Kumar on 6.2.2006. They were appointed against the sanctioned strength of USLs. Generally the unskilled laborers are promoted/ absorbed as semi-skilled labours on qualifying the departmental trade test conducted by the respondents. ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S. RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The Indian Naval Canteen Services Employees' Union and four others have filed this OA in respect of their grievance relating to revision of pay scale of the employees of the Indian Naval Canteen Services (INCS). Notice was issued to the respondents in this regard and in their reply, the respondents have raised the preliminary objection relating to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to deal with the issue as according to the respondents, the applicants do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribual. As such, the parties were heard on the point of jurisdiction. 2. Counsel for the applicant adverted to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.R. Pillai vs Commanding Officer, Headquarters, Southern Air Command (U) (2009) 13 SCC 311, whereby the Apex Court has held that the status of the employees of the Unit Run Canteen of the Armed Forces are not government employees and first attempted to distinguish the case of ...
Tag this Judgment!