Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)(2)SLJ155CAT
1. The applicant is a retired P & T employee. His claim for medical reimbursement has been rejected by the C.P.M.G. Ahmedabad on the ground that though reimbursement is admissible under C.G.H.S. Rules, the same are not applicable to the Postal Pensioners and that Central Service (Medical Attendance) Rules are not extended to the pensioners. The applicant retired as an Internal Financial Adviser and after retirement had settled down in Ahmedabad. On dated 3.10.2002 he had intimated the Chief Postmaster General that he had suffered heart attack on 17.5.94 and again on 6.5.99. His Cardiologist had advised him for Angiography and if necessary to undergo bypass surgery. He also informed the authorities that he intended to undergo Angiography in Government recognised hospital and asked for medical advance of Rs. 10,000. He was however informed that CS (MA) Rules are not applicable to him and as such advance would not be payable to him. The applicant has there-alter got the Angiography d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ357CAT
1. By this OA, the applicant has challenged the non payment of put off duty allowance for the period from 27.10.92 to 16.4.96 and has further sought a direction to the respondents to pay full salary to the applicant for the said period alongwith 18% interest thereon.2. As per the applicant's case, he was put off duly vide order dated 23.10.92 and was denied put off duty allowances as per Rule 9(3) (which is already declared ultra vires by the Bangalore Bench). He was reinstated vide order dated 22.3.96 w.e.f. 23.3.96. However, since he was not paid any allowances, he approached the respondents through an Advocate's notice on 7.5.98 and since the same was not acceded to, therefore he is challenging the said decision by filing this OA on 28.8.2000. The applicant has also filed an application for condonation of delay on the ground that after his dismissal was set aside by Appellate Authority on 22.3.96 he requested for payment of subsistence allowance but that was not paid. He approached...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ180CAT
1. By this O.A. the applicant has challenged the transfer order dated 7.6.2002 (Annexure A-4) by which he has been transferred on same station from one section to the other on the ground that he is being transferred on a lower post of PWI from scale 7500-10000 to 6500-10500 to frustrate the interim order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. 58/2002 and in order to accommodate Shri D.K. Gupta.2. The brief facts as narrated by applicant are that he joined as PWI in 1979 and got his promotions from time to time and was lastly promoted as CPWI vide order dated 10.6.99 (Annexure A). He was given regular promotion vide order dated 1.12.99 and he resumed the duties as CPWI in the scale of 7500- 11500 now redesignated as Sr. Sec. Eng.Permanent Way. He has submitted that Mehsana is divided in two Sections (1) South Section which covers from Mehsana to Ahmedabad and (2) North Section which covers Mehsana to Palanpur. He submits there are only two sanctioned posts of Sr. Sec. Eng. One is held by him a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ159CAT
1. This O.A. has been filed by three outsider postmen to challenge the condition in scheme dated 12.1.2001 wherein it is stated that outsider postmen who are not working will not be Covered under the one time measure to appear in the examination for postman.2. The applicants case in nutshell is that they had worked as outsider postmen for different periods i.e., applicants No, I and 2 from 1982 to 1988 and applicant No. 3 from 1988 to 1997 but were terminated. They challenged their termination but the same was rejected as barred by limitation however they were given liberty to make a representation even the representation was rejected. Applicant No. 1 challenged that order also but that was also rejected. Thereafter some more persons approached the Court against their imminent termination who were granted stay and they continued to be in service ultimately the Tribunal vide its judgment, Annexure A-1, directed the respondents to formulate a scheme to redress the grievance of outsider ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ398CAT
1. This O.A was initially filed by Smt. Mandvi Devi Sheel challenging the order dated 8.7.1990 (Annexure A-3) whereby the selection grade given to applicant in T.G.T post was withdrawn as it came to notice that she was not Scheduled Caste by birth as such was not eligible to be granted the selection grade.She had initially challenged the order in High Court but since Kendriya Vidhyala was brought within the jurisdiction of Tribunal, she was permitted by the High Court vide its order dated 20.4.2001 in SCA 5703/90 to withdraw and file the same in CAT. It was also clarified that limitation should not come in her way (Annexure A-4).2. It is unfortunate that immediately after filing the O. A. applicant died however her legal heirs were allowed by the Tribunal to be brought on record.3. The brief facts of case are that applicant was a brahmin by caste and belonged to U.P. as her surname was Chaturvedi. She however, married one Shri Gangaram Puranchandra Sheel (who belonged to S.C) in 1973....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ376CAT
1. In this O.A. the applicant has challenged the order dated 18.11.1996 issued by Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training whereby he had been allotted Gujarat cadre on the ground that he had opted for Tamil Nadu cadre and was first in the State and at Sr. No. 23 in the All India merit list. It is submitted by applicant that since he was topper in the State and was also OBC even if ratio of 2:1 was to be applied, he ought to have been allotted Tamil Nadu cadre whereas the respondents have given the Tamil Nadu cadre to a S.C. candidate as insider who was holding 180th rank in the All India merit list which according to applicant is absolutely wrong as it is unconstitutional in so far as it makes microscopic mini classification which is an antithesis of equality clause. According to him, no caste based classification is permissible for cadre allocation.He has further submitted that out of five vacancies consider vacancy should have bee...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ199CAT
1. This seems to be umpteenth round of litigation by the applicant. In this O.A. he has challenged the memorandum of charges dated 13.11.86 on the ground that not only the inquiry has not been taken to its logical conclusion by the respondents inspite of directions given by the Tribunal as back as on 27.2.97, but the respondents have not even bothered to file reply in this O. A. till date which is pending since 1997, inspite of the fact that several opportunities were given to them which clearly shows that the respondents have no intention to pass any final order. The applicant has already retired on 30.6.97 but is living with the Damocles sword hanging on his head endlessly and depriving him of his retrial dues in normal course. He has thus sought the following reliefs. (a) Declaring that the disciplinary proceedings initiated on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 13.11.1986 is wholly vitiated by the inordinate and deliberate delay in completing the disciplinary proceedings pending ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ308CAT
(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order No. E/58/1 Vol. XIII dated 10.10.1996 and No. E/58/1/Vol. XII of 28.11.1996 and be pleased to hold that the applicant No. 2 is entitled for out of turn allotment of quarter No. 107/B Type I on his name with effect from 1.10.1996 and to further hold that the applicant No. 2 is entitled to continue in occupation of the said quarter on payment of normal rent. (ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to grant any relief that may be just and proper in the circumstances of the present case.2. The brief facts arc that applicant No. 1, father had been allotted quarter No. 107/B Type I behind Kendriya Vidhyalay, who retired on 30.9.96 but was granted four months retention by respondent No. 3 after 31.1.97. Applicant No. 2 who was son of applicant No. 1 was appointed as Khalasi on 21.6.80 and was transferred to Bhavnagar on 8.6.87 but he was initially living separately. On 14.6.95 both the applicants gave a joint applicat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ277CAT
1. This is disciplinary matter where the applicant has challenged his penalty order and the appellate order upholding the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, The brief facts of the case are that the applicant while working as Head Clerk in the Office of the PWI Katosan Road, Western Railway, Dist, Ahmedabad was charge-sheeted in December 1992 (page 12) on the ground that he failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion to his duty and did an act which is highly unbecoming of a Railway servant and committed misconduct inasmuch as he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 60 on 22.4.92 from the complainant Shri Madhabhai Sadabhai Thakore, Gangman, PWI Office, Western Railway, Katosan Road, Distt. Ahmedabad for clearing his accidental compensation and thereby contravened Rule 3 of Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966.2. An inquiry was conducted wherein full opportunity was given to the applicant to produce his defence and cross-examine the witnesses cited by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ281CAT
1. By this O.A. the applicant has challenged the selection of respondent No. 2 as EDDA and has sought the following relief (s): (i) The impugned order, selection of Respondent No. 2 be please treated as illegal, void and bad in law and against the recruitment rules and be please quash and set aside. (ii) The Respondent authority be please directed to redo the selection procedure strictly keeping the instructions of the department in mind and considering the qualifying when passed S.S.C by more than one attempt having exemptions in any subject as per university rules and regulations.2. The applicant's case is that after Shri M.J. Shukla retired, the post of EDDA was filed on provisional basis by appointing Shri J.H.Bhatt and after terminating the services of Shri J.H. Bhatt the applicant was appointed on provisional basis with effect from 2.6.2000.However, his services were terminated with effect from 3.8.2000 and Shri P.J. Ratnotar, respondent No. 3, was appointed as EDDA on provision...
Tag this Judgment!