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: 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, 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
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
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The applicant applied for the Combined Graduate Level Examination in the year 2011 in pursuance of the Notification dated 19.03.2011 issued by the Staff Selection Commission. He applied under Un-reserved category, and given his first preference to the post of Inspector (Central Excise) apart from other preferences to other posts. He was allotted with Roll No.2201021148, and as per the said Notification, Examination is to be conducted on 19.06.2011 and 26.06.2011. 2. As per the Scheme of the Notification, candidates have to make a single application form for various posts. The examination will comprise of two Tiers - Written Objective Type examination followed by Computer Proficiency Test/Interview/Skill Test, wherever applicable. As per the Scheme of the examination, as notified, posts have been placed in two groups, interalia, based on their Grade Pay. Preference of posts, Group- wise is to be indicated in the application. Further detailed option for post...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G George Paracken, Member (J) In this Case the Applicant was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff (MTS for short) in the office of the Respondents, namely, the General Manager (Finance), Postal Accounts Office, Delhi after having being sponsored by the Staff Selection Commission, vide Annexure A-2 order dated 13.12.2011. Among the terms and conditions of the aforesaid appointment, one of them was as under:- the appointment is purely on a temporary basis and will be governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as amended from time to time. The appointment can be terminated at any time under the said CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reasons. If you want to wish to resign the employment you will give notice in writing for a period of not less than one month of your intension of resign. 2. After having accepted the aforesaid terms and conditions in the said offer of appointment, the Applicant was taken on the strength of the Respondents as MTS with effect from 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J) Applicant in this Original Application was a candidate for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in Delhi Police in the recruitment held in the year 2011 . In this Original Application, he has challenged the impugned Annexure-B notice dated 22.11.2012 calling upon him why his candidature for the said post should not be cancelled. He has also challenged the impugned Annexure-A order dated 11.12.2012 cancelling his candidature. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:- In response to Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.2012, you had submitted your reply dated 07.12.2012 stating therein the plea(s) that the above said case was registered against you as the complainant had personal grudges and taken personal vendetta during the Panchayat Election (Gram Pardhan) and this is due to one of the jealousy in framing up the case due to pursue of your higher qualification in BCA only being student from your village. You were neither arrested by the Police nor t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. Heard, Shri S.C. Jindal for the applicant and Mrs. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents on the issue of maintainability of the present T.A. 2.The applicant, NDMC Avam Karamchari Bachao Morcha, a Registered Union of employees of NDMC under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, through its General Secretary, originally filed the Writ Petition (C) No.5244/2013 before the Honble High Court of Delhi seeking the following reliefs: (a)To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto holding that the extension of Respondent No.4 as Advisor (Revenue) and Advisor (Legal) NDMC is illegal and void under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and instructions of the Government issued from time to time and the post be filled up by Respondent No.1 in accordance with law. To set up an independent enquiry into the alleged illegality and conspiracy made by Respondents with other officials of NDMC who are giving extension after extension to Respondent No.4 in violation of ...
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!