Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. This O.A. has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad vide letter No. 769-E-2/Pensions/Feb 2004 dated 21.12.2004 by which the widow applicant has been denied family pension after the death of her husband who died in harness on the false plea that her husband Late Ram Kishun was a temporary status employee and not a regular Railway servant. The applicant has sought that this Tribunal direct the respondents, (i) to grant family pension and other balance pensionary benefits and pay the balance dues (i.e. subsistence allowance) arrears of family pension as admissible under the rules alongwith 12% interest on delayed payment of all admissible amounts payable to her as per rules; (ii) Tribunal to direct award of compensation for harassment caused to the applicant for wrongful denial of family pension.2. The husband of the applicant was appointed in the Railways as a casual labourer prior to 01.08.1978 and after work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. The present O.A. is filed against the order dated 09.04.2002 (Annexure A-I) passed by the respondent No. 1, whereby in pursuance of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, Judgment dated 25.05.2001 the representation of the applicant dated 22.03.2001 was rejected and respondent No. 3 was directed to implement the transfer order of the applicant, transferring him to AGE (I) Talbehat and report compliance by 15.05.2002.2. The applicant joined the respondent establishment at IMA, Dehradun as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) w.e.f. 22.04.1972. Due to his unblemished record, the applicant was granted second upgradation and is presently working as Upper Division Clerk (UDC) in the Office of the AE I, Raiwala under CWE, Dehradun in the grade Rs.5000-150-8000 and has been discharging his functions to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The applicant had a massive heart attack on 08.12.1999. After hospitalization and based on medical advise the applicant remained on leave ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. Applicant S.M.R. Naqvi posted as head Master at Kendriya Vidyalaya Air Force Station Bamrauli, Allahabad is challenging order dated 13.8.2006 (A-1) by which he has been transferred to Kendriya Vidyalaya Singrauli, in Madhya Pradesh, on the grounds interalia, that it is in breach of para 15.1. and 15.2. of the Guidelines dated 14.3.2006 (A-2) and also unjust for the reasons mentioned in Para 4 (xx) (xxi), (xxii) and (xxiii).2. The sum and substance of his case as disclosed in the OA and the Rejoinder affidavit is that since his retirement is due on 31.5.2009 so he was covered by the expression "LTR" and was in the category of persons whose dislocation was to be avoided (CDA). He says that the respondents No. 1-5 have professed to have effected the transfer in question in terms of para 15.1 of latest guidelines dated 14.3.06, but have ignored other part of the same guidelines which says that as far as possible employee falling in CDA category should not be disturbed or dislocated so ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. This is the second round of litigation. In the earlier round when the applicant approached the Tribunal for an order directing the respondents not to impose any damage rent, vide order dated 12th September, 2003 in OA 1094/03, at Annexure A13, the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and pass a speaking order. The impugned order is in pursuance of the said Directions of this Tribunal. Aggrieved by the same the applicant has presented this OA.2. The Facts: The applicant is a serving Medical Officer and in the Junior Administrative Grade. He is entitled to a Type V accommodation.He was in occupation of Bungalow No. 7A in the Inspectors Colony, Gaya, which is a type IV Accommodation. Identical type of accommodation was Bungalow No. 3 of the said Colony with the same extent of licence fee of Rs. 273. The said Bungalow was under occupation of one Dr. M. Lal, who, on his transfer had vacated the same. Hence, the applicant took possession of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. The applicant is widow of late Shri Puttoo Lal, who was working as Group 'D' employee with the respondents since 16.9.1962. The applicant, while in service, made an application in the Railway after the death of her husband for retiral benefit to the applicant and also prayed for a job on compassionate ground for her son Ram Das. When Shri Puttoo Lal died his son was of 5 years of age and, therefore, the widow had to wait for him to attain the age of majority. The applicant has further stated that for a long time she did not get any intimation regarding retiral dues. Finally, she came to know through the correspondence dated 26.12.2001 (Annexure-6) that the case being highly belated, the respondents could not provide any job to her son and on the question of retiral benefits, she did not get any intimation.2. The respondents have denied the allegation in the counter affidavit stating that the applicant had opted for Provident Fund scheme and not for pension. At that time there were ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. The applicant is the Union of India in this O.A., while the respondent is an officer functioning in the Respondent's organization.2. In 1977 when the respondent was transferred from Kanpur to Ambajhari, he prefered a representation for his retention in Kanpur for a period of 2 years, which was turned down by the applicant. The respondent was relieved by the Ordnance Facory, Kanpur but as the relieving order was not entertained by the respondent, service by affixture at his residence was effected. For about two years since the respondent was stated to be 'absconding', the applicant chose to issue a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS(CC&A) Rules, 1965 and inquiry conducted. Agreeing with the Inquiry Authority's findings, penalty of removal from service was imposed upon the respondent on 05-04-1982.3. Respondent filed civil suit No. 561/82 before the XI Additional Munsif Kanpur and the suit was allowed, and consequently, the applicant Union of India filed appeal before the Addl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. The claim of the applicant is that though he was entitled to be appointed in the Indian Police Services from August, 1995, with year of allotment of 1989, he had been appointed under the provisions of Rule 9(I) of the Indian Police Service Rules 1954 in the Indian Police Service vide Annexure A-2 order dated 2nd February, 1996 and his year of allotment had been delayed by one year i.e. 1990 only. When vacancy arose in November, 1995, instead of considering immediately, the respondents due to their dilatory tactics delayed the promotion of the applicant, which could ultimately materialize only in February 1996 and this has caused irreparable loss to the applicant. He has, therefore, sought for the following reliefs: (a) That the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 23.1.98 by which the name of the applicant appears at sl. No. 12 and a seniority has been fixed w.e.f. 1990. (b) That the Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the respondents to refix the seniority of t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. The applicant at present functioning as Accounts Officer in the office of the 4th respondent is aggrieved by alleged wrong fixation of pay at the time of implementation of the V Central Pay Commission Recommendations.2. The applicant was, in July, 1992, promoted as Section Officer in the grade of Rs 1640 - 2900, and was further prmoted w.e.f. 11-03-1996 as Assistant Accounts Officer in the grade of 2000 - 3200. Since his date of increment in the earlier grade was first July, he had opted at the time of his promotion to the post of Asst. Accounts Officer for fixation of pay under FR 22 (1)(a)(1) (formerly FR 22-C), vide Annexure A-19. Thus, the applicant's pay as of 01-07-1996 was fixed at Rs 2,375/- in the scale of Rs 2,000 - 3,200/-. At the time of this promotion as well as fixation of pay, the Revised Pay Rules, 1997 were not notified. Thus, in the grade of Sr. Accounts Officer, the applicant was drawing at the time of promotion pay only in the pre-revised pay scale attached to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, in OA No. 1295/03 by order dated 17th May 2004, extracting the relief as claimed by the applicant, which is identical to the relief claimed herein and on the submission of the respondents that the case has to be decided by the appropriate Authority at Northern Railway as the applicant had retired from service in January, 2003 while working in the Northern Railway, this Tribunal directed the respondents to dispose of the representation of the applicant. Time calendared was three months.2. In pursuance of the above order of the Tribunal, the Respondents had passed the impugned Annexure A-3 order dated 13-08-2004.3. Now brief facts of the case with terse sufficiency: The Railway Board, vide notification dated 24th January, 2001 issued the following order: (i) In the case of Group B Accounts Officer, the revised scale S-14 (Rs. 7500-12000) will be operatd to the extent of 20% of the total number of Group B Accounts Officer roll, includin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Allahabad
1. The applicant herein, initially was appointed as LDC in 1973 and later on was promoted to the post of UDC, Head Clerk and then Office Superintendent, but in 1994 the applicant himself volunteered to inform the Respondents that his promotions under the reserved quota was erroneous as he belonged to General Category. Result, he was pushed back to the grade of LDC and departmental action initiated. However, on the sole ground that the applicant was truthful and he himself volunteered to come out to inform the Respondents of the erroneous promotions granted to him, the Disciplinary Authority thoroughly exonerated him. The question then was as to how to fit him in the ladder of cadre in the general category. The applicant was placed as UDC in 1988 with notional seniority, duly interpolated between 181 and 182 in the seniority list published in 1996, vide order No. 132 dated 22-04-2002. The applicant was in the said grade of UDC till recently and has since July, 2006 been stated to be fu...
Tag this Judgment!