Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ134CAT
1. The above named two applicants, Sarv Shri J.P. Chandelia and R.N.Arvind, who were the senior members of State Administrative Service of Rajasthan, have since been appointed on promotion to Indian Administrative Service (IAS). They are aggrieved on account of in-action on the part of the respondents to give them appointment in IAS against the quota of the year 1992-93 as well as on account of the positive decision of the respondents to assign them the year of Allotment (YOA) as '1988'. Shri R.N. Arvind, is admittedly junior to Shri J.P. Chandelia. By and large, he would swim or sink with the findings and decision which may be arrived at in the case of Sh. J.P.Chandelia. The facts and the controversy in the two OAs overlap. With a view to avoid repetition and for the sake of clarity, it is proposed to decide both these O.As by this common Judgment.2. By way of preface, it may be pointed out that the promotion of the members of the State Civil Service to IAS, is governed by the provis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ174CAT
1. Through this O.A. the applicant seeks quashment of the orders dated 14.6.2001 (Annex. A.1) 25.3.88 (Annex. A-2) passed by the respondent No. 3 and the order dated 28.3.89 (Annex. A-3) passed by the respondent No. 2. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to refund the amount which has been recovered from him pursuant to the order Annex.A-2.2. The relevant facts arc these. The applicant was employed as Driver 'B' in the office of the 3rd respondent. He was served with a charge-sheet for imposing major penalty vide communication dated 3.10.86. The allegations made against the applicant were that he was co-driver of the engine No. 6272 YDM-4 Train No. 509 and he was responsible for starting the train without authority passing starter No. 26 of road No. 5 routing starter No. 101 which was 197.20 meter away from the starter signal and stopped the train at a distance of 476.60 meter. The applicant in his reply denied the charges. The enquiry was held and the Enquiry Officer d...
Tag this Judgment!