Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
MR. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the Annexure A-3 notice dated 5.9.2007 by which the 2nd respondent has invited application for provisional appointment to the post of Gramin Dak Sevak Mail Deliverer (GDSMD for short), Kattilkadavu Branch Office. He has, sought a direction from this Tribunal to quash the aforesaid notice on the ground that he has been serving against the said post on provisional basis and he cannot be replaced by another provisional appointee. 2. According to the applicant, he was employed as GDSMD on provisional basis with effect from 27.11.2000 when one Shri Krishna Pillai holding the said post on regular basis went on leave and it continued till 9.6.2002, i.e. the date on which Shri Krishna Pillai retired from service. After his retirement, one Shri Rajendran was appointed in his place on regular basis with effect from 10.6.2002. Later on, Shri Rajendran was promoted as a Postman on regular basis with effect from 2.3.2006 and he ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
..... of the wp, the applicant was denied full time engagement upon which she moved high court. the high court by way of interim direction ordered payment of wages, which remained unpaid (a17). the applicant is challenging annexure a-1 on the grounds that despite clear direction from the high court in wp no. 27717/2003 for engagement of the applicant as .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE Mr. K. GEORGE JOSEPH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER 1. This O.A was filed for a direction to the respondents to publish the result of the applicant in respect of the examination for recruitment to the cadre of Postman held on 20.12.2009. The O.A was allowed at the admission stage itself on 10.06.2010 directing the respondents to publish the result within 15 days. The time limit set by this Tribunal to publish the result was not adhered to by the respondents. Contempt petition No. 85/10 was filed by the applicant. It was closed when the respondents published the result on 08.09.2010. Subsequently, the applicant filed RA No. 38/10 praying to review the order in O.A No. 501/10 and to direct the respondents to appoint the applicant as Postman with effect from the date on which other candidates, who qualified in the exam on 20.12.2009 have been appointed with all consequential benefits including seniority. The applicant also filed M.A 930/10 in the O.A for staying the filling up of the vaca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ96CAT
1. As the issue involved in all these three Original Applications are the same these three O.As. were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of convenience, the facts of; O.A. No. 1309/99 are being given and are being dealt with in this order.2. Applicants two in number aggrieved by A-3 order dated 5.4.99 filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs: (i) To call for the records leading upto Annexure A3 and all further proceedings pursuant there to in filling up the vacancies of Artisan Khalasis in the Engineering Department of the Southern Railway, Palghat and quash the same. (ii) To issue a direction to the respondents to fill up the post of Artisan Khalasis from among the Non-Artisan Khalasis of the Works Branch of the Engineering Department with due regard to their seniority as Khalasis/Non-Artisan Khalasis. (iii) . To issue such as orders or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Hon'ble Mr. George Paracken, Judicial Member The applicant is aggrieved by (i) the Annexure A-5 letter of the disciplinary authority withdrawing the inquiry report already sent to him vide letter No.V/VO/PC/T/2004/08/013/TVC/25 dated 12.12.2006, (ii) Annexure A-7 letter of the disciplinary authority dated 2.2.2007 stating that it was not agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer and enclosing with disagreement memorandum and the very same inquiry report again with the for (iii) Annexure A-9 penalty advice dated 12.2.2007 imposing a penalty of reduction of his salary by 2 stages to Rs.3790/- from Rs.3930/- in the scale of Rs.2650-4000 with effect from 14.2.2007 with cumulative effect, (iv) Annexure A-11 letter of the appellate authority dated 13.8.2007 rejecting his appeal and confirming the penalty order and (v) the Annexure A-12 letter dated 1.3.2007 wishing him a prosperous and peaceful retired life and enclosing with a cheque/DD for Rs.3,08,137/- towards his retirement gratu...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Hon'ble Mr.George Paracken, Judicial Member The applicant is a retrenched casual labourer of Southern Railway, Trivandrum. He worked under the Permanent Way Inspector, Construction, Southern Railway, Kottar, Nagercoil from 16.10.1978 to 1.8.1981 and thereafter under the Permanent Way Inspector, Alwaye from 9.3.1989 to 29.4.1989 as revealed from Annexure A-1 casual labour card. Taking his aforesaid service into account, he was offered an appointment as Group 'D' Temporary Gangman with probation of one year vide Annexure A-2 letter dated 1.12.1998. One of the conditions of the said appointment was that he should undergo medical examination and that he would be governed by provisions of Indian Railway Code and other extant orders as amended/issued from time to time. He was also directed to remit Rs.16/-towards medical examination fee. He had undergone the medical examination on 16.12.1998 at Railway Hospital, Pettah and thereafter he was referred to Railway Hospital, Palghat on 18.12.199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. Being identical, both these OAs are disposed of by this common order. 2. OA No. 1003 of 2011 - The applicant in this OA is presently working as Senior Section Officer (Accounts). While working in the Railway Electrification Organization she had suffered a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of three months without cumulative effect vide order dated 13.2.2008 for her failure to check the admissibility of ONA bills Nos. ONA 20/34, dated 5.1.2006, ONA 21/36, dated 15.2.2006 and ONA 22/37, dated 15.2.2006 due to which illegal payment of more than 35 Lakhs was made to a contractor. The above excess payment was fully recovered from the contractor. However, the 2nd respondent issued Annexure A1 charge memo dated 3.2.2010 raising the very same allegations against the applicant once again. In spite of her request to drop all further proceedings she was served with Annexure A2 order dated 3.11.2011 to hold a preliminary hearing on the ...
Tag this Judgment!