Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(ORAL) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER (J):- 1. Counter filed on behalf of the Respondents 1-3, is taken on record. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 4 and 5 states that since no action of Respondents is under challenge, no counter on their behalf is required to be filed. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants states that he does not want to file any rejoinder and is ready to argue the matter. 3. The following factual scenario is apparent from a conjunctive perusal of the pleadings raised by the parties. The applicants (all of whom were Medical Officers), presently deployed under the administrative control of the Director, Health Services, UT Chandigarh, had been getting payment of the HRA which was quantified by calculating the amount payable to them as NPA as a part of the pay. They have received that payment till February, 2011. The counting of NPA as pay for quantification of HRA was unceremoniously stopped by the Official Respondents 1-3 and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Mrs. Promilla Issar, Member (A) Since all the applicants have common cause of action and the relief prayed for is also the same they are allowed to file a joint Application. 2. The applicants have filed this OA praying for the following reliefs:- “i) That a direction be issued to the respondents to grant them the benefit of order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Kiran Pal and others Vs. Union of India and Others in OA No. 800/CH/2001 as upheld by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court and stand implemented by the respondents ast Chandigarh, Amritsar and Jammu. ii) That action of the respondents in terming the applicants as contractor’s employees be declared as wholly illegal and arbitrary.” 3. It is the projected case of the applicants that they were initially engaged as Frash on different dates between 2002 and 2007 in the Respondent Department. They have stated that they were under the direct control of Respondent no. 2 and...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Khushiram, Member (A): Both the applicants are working as Mill Wright Mechanic Technician Gr.I and III respectively and claim to have unblemished service record. On 5.8.2010, three posts of J.E.(Grade-II) against 25% IMA quota were advertised for unreserved category with age limit upto 47 years as on 9.6.2010 and candidates must have been working as Technician Gr.III or Technician Gr.II on this date. Applicants applied for the same. Thirty one candidates including the present applicants were found eligible. The respondents decided to conduct the written examination on 16.11.2010 which was postponed to 30.11.2010 and again to 21.1.2011 and finally the same was conducted on 14.2.2011. The result was announced on 18.3.2011 and out of 31 candidates, only three candidates qualified the written test. There was no interview and merit was the sole criteria. The names of the applicants appeared at sr.No.2 and 3 in the result declared and thus they were fully hopeful of being put on the panel of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Mrs.Promilla Issar, Member (A): The applicant has filed the present O.A praying for the following relief:- “It is prayed that above facts may be got verified and keeping in view of these facts, present selection/order for the post of Assistant Director (Ballistics) of the cadre of Directorate of Forensic Science Services may be cancelled/quashed/set aside and the selection may be made either on promotion basis or a fresh Selection Committee may be convene for re-assessment of comparative merit on the basis of the service records and not confining the consideration to oral interview only for the natural justice.” 2. On 3.1.2012, Respondent No.3 namely R.S.Suresh, Senior Scientific Officer(Ballistics) State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi, was restrained from joining the post of Assistant Director (Ballistics) of Forensic Science Services cadre, in case he had not already joined that post. 3. The applicant has challenged the appointment of respondent no.3 on the gr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral) SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) The applicant was appointed as a Science Mistress (Non-Medical) on contract basis on a consolidated salary of Rs.8000/- per month vide appointment letter dated 12.11.2002 (Annexure A-1). 2. The Chandigarh Administration issued various policy circulars dated 13.3.2007 (Annexure A-2), 10.1.2008 (Annexure A-3), 5.3.2009 (Annexure A-4) and 30.7.2009 (Annexure A-5) enhancing the consolidated salary of the contractual employees of Union Territory corresponding with the regular pay scales of the concerned posts. The pay scale of the post of Science Mistress was Rs.5480-8925, which was revised to Rs.9900/- w.e.f. 1.1.2007, Rs.10,500/- w.e.f. 1.1.2008, Rs.11200/- w.e.f. 1.1.2009 and Rs.17,600/- w.e.f. 1.8.2009. The same was not released to the applicant, thus, she filed O.A.No. 742-CH-2009 and during the pendency of O.A. salary of applicant was revised and she was released salary @ Rs.17,600/- w.e.f. 1.8.2009 only, without granting earlier revision of salary from...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(ORAL) JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER (J) 1. Counter presented on behalf of the respondents is taken on record. 2. In the course of the O.A., the applicant raised a grievance about the denial of the ACP benefits to which he claims to have become entitled w.e.f. 09.08.1999. He also claims entitlement to the award of interest for the delay in the relevant behalf. He also prays for a direction qua consequential re-fixation of pay and also the grant of revised pensionary benefits. 3. In the course of short counter filed today, an averment has been made that the ACP has been sanctioned in favour of the applicant w.e.f. 09.08.1999. The factual accuracy of the averment is not contested during the course of hearing. 4. Insofar as the disbursement of actual monetary benefit is concerned, learned counsel for the respondents states that it shall come about within three months from today. The undertaking is accepted by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. In support of the claim for the award of i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(ORAL) BY HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND, MEMBER (J):- 1. It is common ground, during the course of the hearing, that the applicant was at S. No. 2 in the merit list which came into being on a conjunctive appraisal of various criteria-related facets in the matter of the impugned selection. The availability was only of one post. The selected candidate joined on 22.4.2010 and resigned on 20.9.2010. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant argues that the applicant being a 1973 born, would not be able to enter the public service for the rest of the life time and it would be very difficult for him to find means for economic sustenance for himself, spouse and his only child, if appointment offer is not made to him. 3. Besides making the above indicated plea, the learned counsel for the applicant states that it is a fit case wherein the applicant should be allowed to enter in public service, being the next best candidate available and the period of currency of the panel being for one year ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
JUSTICES.D.ANAND, MEMBER (J) 1. The applicants have applied for the issuance of a direction to Respondent No. 2 to treat them as regular employees on the precise averment that they had been engaged by none else or other than the Respondent No. 2 itself (CPWD) in the year 2000 and they have been in continuous employment since then. 2. The respondents denied the averred direct contract of the employment by raising a plea that the applicants are, in fact, the employees of an agency (JET SPARKLE) to which the relevant job had been outsourced. The plea, thus, raised is that there is no direct relationship of employer and employee as between the applicant and the respondents. 3. Initially, this O.A. came to be allowed, vide order dated 06.05.2011. In the judicial review challenge, the respondents (petitioners therein and respondents herein) raised a plea that they could not place on record certain documentation which had a relevant bearing upon the controversy and which, if allowed to be pro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND, MEMBER (J):- 1. None has entered appearance on behalf of the applicant to assist this Bench. Same was the position on 20.12.2011 and 20.1.2012. On a number of dates, i.e. 11.11.2011, 21.2.2012 and 26.3.2012, a learned proxy counsel had appeared on behalf of the learned arguing counsel. 2. In the absence of any presentation on behalf of the applicant, we have been through the pleadings raised by the parties with the help of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 3. There is a precise averment in the course of the OA that the applicant was denied an opportunity of participation in the relevant selection process ‘even though he is better qualified than the selected candidates’. 4. In the corresponding para of the Counter, the Official Respondents controverted that averment and took up a precise stance that the applicant did not even apply for consideration of the relevant posts. It is also the averment that his name was not sponsore...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral) (BY Honourable Mrs. Shyama Dogra, Member (J) M.A.No.709/2011 IN OA.NO.781/PB/2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the applicant for condonation of delay in filing the Original Application as prescribed under the Central Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was removed from service by the respondent without any notice to hold an inquiry, vide order dated 19.02.1997 Annexure A-1. He alleges that no charge sheet, no inquiry report and order of removal from service was supplied to him. He has received all the documents under R.T.I. in 2010, thereafter, he has filed the Original Application. Therefore, delay in filing OA is not intentional and the same be condoned. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed this application on the ground that applicant was given full opportunity to make his defence for the charges of un-authorized absence fro...
Tag this Judgment!