Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... 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 operative part of the said order reads as under:- shri atma prakash dixist and others have filed this original application under section 19 of the administrative tribunals act, 1985 seeking direction to be issued to the respondents to grant them higher grade pay of rs.2800 w.e.f. 01.01.2006 with all consequential benefits ..... also they were granted the same pay scale at par with others but lesser grade pay. 13. we are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondents have acted in violation of articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of india in granting lesser grade pay to the sfa, afo, fo etc. of ssb from sfa, afo, .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
..... 10 staff nurses were relieved from that hospital through office order dated 09.03.2009, and they were asked to report to the medical superintendent of chacha nehru bal chikistsalaya, shastri nagar, and they have been working in that second hospital on contractual basis since then. she has pointed out that those 10 staff nurses, ..... respondents for redressal of his grievance, and since he has not exhausted the remedies by making a representation to the respondents, under section 20 of the at act, the oa should be dismissed in limine for not exhausting the alternative remedies before approaching the tribunal. in this context, the respondents had cited the judgment of ..... applicants have not exhausted the alternative remedies available to them and rushed to this tribunal and therefore, the oas are not maintainable under section 20 of the at act, 1985, and (2) that there is no violation of the terms of their contract, as already provided in the letter of offer of engagement on contractual .....
Tag this Judgment!