Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J) 1. Both the sides are in agreement that the facts of the case and points of law involved in these Original Applications are common and as such these have been taken up for disposal by a common order. For the facility of convenience, facts have been taken from O.A.No. 296-PB-2012 (Mrs. Amrita Vs. Union of India and Others). 2. A charge-sheet dated 3.12.2008 under rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, came to be issued to the applicant, with allegations that while working as Postal Assistant, SBSO, Jalandhar City HO, during 2001 to 12.5.2007, she had failed to get verified the heavy withdrawals of Padhiana Single Handed SO, through SDI. She also failed to compare balance written in SB-7 with the balance available in SBSO record and also did not compare the signature of depositor on withdrawal form with SB-3 held in SBSO, which facilitated Sh. Chander Parkash Khurana, the then SPM Padhiana, SO making fraudulent withdrawals from various SB accounts on different ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik , Member (J) 1. The applicant initially joined service as LDC on 22.2.1972 and during the course of employment, came to be appointed as Administrative Officer Grade-II in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 in the Ministry of Agriculture on 13.6.1990. This post exists in other departments of Government of India i.e. All India Radio, Department of Agriculture, Income Tax Department, Central Pass Port Organization, National Museum etc. The post of Administrative Officer also existed in respondent no. 3 office in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500. The administrative hierarchy for promotion in the office of Respondent No.3 and 4 is as under :-Head Clerk / Accountant / Store SupervisorRs.1400-2300Office SupervisorRs.1640-2900Administrative Officer Grade-IIRs.2000-3500Administrative Officer Grade-I (now abolished w.e.f. 2001 under Right Sizing Scheme)Rs.2375-35002. The 5th Central Pay Commission was constituted for revision of pay scales w.e.f. 1.1.1996. The Commission deals with the A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member(J) 1. By means of the present Original Application, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief:- i) Applicant be given the whole payment of the revised pension from the date of its accrual along with the increase in DA carrying interest @ 10%. 2. On the commencement of hearing, Sh. Pradeep Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant had already represented the respondents on 11.07.2012 for release of the benefits, which have now been claimed in the instant O.A., which has not been decided by the respondents till date. He made a statement at the Bar, that the applicant will be satisfied if a time bound directions is given to the respondents to decide his pending representation. 3. The order, which I propose to pass there is no need to issue notice to the respondents and called for written statement. However, Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, Senior Standing Counsel for the Union of Ind...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Order (Oral) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J) 1. Counter filed is taken on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant herein states that he does not wish to file any rejoinder. 3. The applicant, who retired from service w.e.f. 31.05.2006, has raised a claim for award of interest for delay in the disbursement of relevant items of retiral benefits. 4. There being no controversy about the exact date on which different facets of the retiral benefits came to be paid up, it will be appropriate to extract hereunder the relevant information which stands detailed in the course of para 4(x) of the O.A. It will be relevant to notice here that there is no controversy in the course of the counter qua the dates on which those items of retiral benefits came to be disbursed to the applicant herein. Sr. No. Nature of Payment Amount Date of receipt 1. Difference of arrears of pay Rs.63,767/- 25.07.2011 2. Difference in retirement T.A. Rs.9,671/- 05.10.2011 3. Difference in leave encashm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Order (Oral) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J) 1. This O.A., which is otherwise cognizable by a DB, has been taken up for disposal on consensual basis. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents is under instructions to state that respondent No. 2 adopts the counter already filed on behalf of Respondents No. 1 and 3. In support of the averment made, learned counsel has placed on record a copy of communication dated 12.03.2012 addressed by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension to the Secretary, Ministry of Communications and I.T., Deptt. Of Posts. 3. It is apparent, from a conjunctive perusal of the pleas raised by the parties, that the promotion/posting orders in favour of the applicant herein (and a host of others who are not a party to the case) came to be issued vide order dated 17.11.2011(Annexure A-1). The promotions to Postal Service Group-B grade were relatable to the year 2011. The appointment, by promotion was ‘on regular basi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Order (Oral) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J) 1. Counter filed in the registry is taken on record. 2. There is a precise averment, made in the course of the O.A., to the effect that certain similarly ranked officers with much longer stay in the Punjab Circle had been allowed to stay over in that very circle though they are indicated to have been forwarded to a particular Chandigarh-based project. To be correct on facts, those people were also transferred once out of Punjab Circle but were forwarded to a Chandigarh-based project before the earlier orders could be implemented. The applicant, concededly, has a lesser stay in Punjab Circle. 3. The applicant has named one Mohinder Pal Goyal of the above indicated category who was initially transferred to J and K Circle and, thereafter, adjusted against the Chandigarh-based project. With a view to explain that apparent inconsistency, the learned counsel for the respondents states that his retention and the consequential forwa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Order (Oral) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J) 1. During the course of hearing, it is no longer a matter of dispute that the ultimate finding of the Hon'ble Apex Judicial Dispensation in a similar case would authorize the allowance of the claim raised by the applicant herein with the difference that no interest would be payable on the amount of medical reimbursement. 2. There can be equally no dispute with the proposition that the view obtained by the Apex Judicial Dispensation had been announced in a judgment dated 31.08.2005 in CWP 11918 of 2002 (Annexure A-6). A learned Division Bench of this Tribunal (to which I was a party) had also declined to award interest on the amount of medical reimbursement in respectful accord with the learned Division Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Om Parkash Gargi Versus State of Punjab and Others (1996) 11 Supreme Court Cases 399. 3. In the light thereof, the O.A. shall stand allowed. The balance amount of Rs. 67,523/- shall be p...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
MR. KHUSHIRAM, MEMBER (A) 1. The following orders were passed in O.A. 730/HP/2011 on 09.08.2011:- “6. In the totalitgy of the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this O.A. with a direction to the respondents to consider the reviewing of the year-wise vacancies pertaining to the SC quota and consider the applicants for promotion in the light thereof. In case the applicants are found eligible for ante-dating of their promotion, it will be for the respondents to grant consideration to the release of relevant monetary benefits as well. If the applicants do not find it acceptable, it will obviously be open to them to raise a challenge thereagainst. 7. The learned counsel for respondents states that the exercise shall be concluded within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 2. The applicants have filed this contempt petition for non-compliance of the orders aforementioned. They submitted that the respondents, in compliance of the orders pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J) 1. In raising the claim applied for before the competent administrator authority, the applicant had indicated certain similarly circumstanced employees to whom the relevant benefit had been granted. That representation of his claiming equivalence with the similarly circumstanced came to be negatived by the competent authority, vide order dated 15.03.2011 (Annexure R-3) by indicating that the matter had been referred to the DOPandT and the Department of Expenditure, both of which (Departments) ‘have informed that the request of Sh. Swinder Singh, Assistant Director, CPDO, Chandigarh for grant of 2nd ACP to him w.e.f. 21.6.2004 after completion of 24 years of his regular service cannot be acceded to’. 2. It would be apparent, from a conjunctive perusal of the representation and the impugned order granted thereupon (Annexure R-3) that it does not at all deal with the contention raised by the applicant and also the basis wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER(J) 1. Applicants herein have applied for invalidation of the view obtained by the competent authority to grant reservation in promotion to the candidates from the reserved category. The pure and simple plea raised by the applicant thereby is that unless the relevant exercise in accord with the directions given in the case of M. Nagaraj Vs. Union of India (2006 8 SCC 212) is carried out, there can be no reservation in the matter of promotion of the member of reserved category. Reliance, in support thereof, is placed upon the view obtained in CWP No. 13218/2000 (Annexure A-22). 2. The stance of respondents draws sustenance from the instructions under challenge (Annexure A-1). 3. The O.A. deserves to be allowed. The reasons therefore are as under. 4. There can be no dispute about the contours of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Judicial Dispensation in M. Nagraj case. There was a categorical pronouncement therein that the rese...
Tag this Judgment!