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 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 Delhi
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed Writ Petition No.579/2005 against the order of dismissal dated 15.10.1999. The said Writ Petition was transferred to this Tribunal, which was registered as TA No.1223/2009. This Tribunal vide order dated 15.12.2009 directed the Commissioner, MCD to treat the said TA as supplementary revision of applicant and dispose of the same by a reasoned order to be passed within a period of 03 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal the respondents have again passed the order dated 07.06.2010, thereby enclosing a detailed speaking order, upholding the order of the disciplinary authority dated 15.10.1999, inflicting the penalty of dismissal from service with a modification to the extent that penalty of dismissal from service shall not be a disqualification for future employment. It is this order, which is under challenge in this OA and t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged letter dated 12.3.2010 and sought a direction to the respondents to get him medically examined by an independent Medical Board at Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi or at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, or in any other Govt. Hospital as per the Medical requirement of the Railways for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (hereinafter referred to as ALP) and the case of the applicant may be considered for his appointment to the post of ALP on the basis of the medical report given by an independent Medical Board. 2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant are in the year 2008 Railway Recruitment Board Chandigarh had invited applications for the post of Apprentices Assistant Loco Pilot had applied for it and was declared successful and sent offer of appointment vide letter dated 25.9.2009 (page 12). Thereafter, he was sent for medical examination vide letter dated 5.11.2009. Applicant was declared unfit in A-1 category (page 13)...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J): 1. Applicant has sought direction to the respondents to appoint him for the post of Constable (Executive) Male Delhi Police Recruitment, 2009 along with all benefits and allowances with effect from 17.8.2011, i.e., the date of termination. 2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was appointed as Constable on 5.7.2010. He continued to perform his duties but show cause notice dated 12.1.2011 was issued to him (page 15) by alleging that at the time of filling the application form applicant did not mention details of the criminal proceedings in column No.15 (a) to (e) rather mentioned ‘No’ against each column whereas the police verification report received in Recruitment Cell, Delhi Police from SP/Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) revealed that a case FIR No. 31/2000 under Section 447/435 IPC, PS Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, was registered against him. He had thus suppressed his criminal involvement in the application as well as in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORAL: M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier the applicant had filed OA No.3116/2010, which was decided on 20.09.2010 at the admission stage with liberty given to the applicant to file representation within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order claiming his seniority over the juniors and giving specific grounds on which he should be considered by the Respondents for re-engagement as casual labourer, absorption and regularization in appropriate post with the Respondents. Respondents were also directed to consider the said representation of the Applicant alongwith the copy of that OA as a supplementary representation and pass appropriate orders within a period of 02 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal in the aforesaid terms respondents have passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2011 (Annexure A-1), which is under challenge in this OA and the applicant has prayed...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
V.K. BALI, CHAIRMAN: 1. Ranjit Singh Bisht and ten others have filed this Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking to quash the recruitment rules known as SSB (Secretarial) Service, 2006, framed for civilian ministerial cadre, enforced vide notification dated 20.11.2006, for Group “B” (Gazetted and Non-Gazetted) ministerial posts. They also seek a direction to be issued to the respondents to maintain status quo till finalization of SLP pending in the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Sukesh Kumar Nayak, and further to direct the respondents to follow the existing Rules of 1975. 2. We will give facts hereinafter, but we may mention that whereas under the rules known as DGS (Secretariat) Services Rules, 1975 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules of 1975), a civilian ministerial cadre UDC would be eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant after having put in five years service as UDC, in the new rules known ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J): The applicant herein filed Civil Writ Petition No.6292/2002 in the High Court of Delhi praying that the Honble Court be pleased to issue a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction:- (i) set aside/ quash the impugned order/memorandum dated 14.3.2002 passed by the Respondent as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and also undertaking obtained by the petitioner is per se illegal; Writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Asstt. Manager (M);Award the cost of these proceedings in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; and further issue any other appropriate writs, orders or directions are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and to meet the ends of justice; 2. Pursuant to Notification No.SO (E) issued on 1.12.2008, the matter came under the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal of this Bench and accordingly the matter w...
Tag this Judgment!