Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A). 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- 8(A). Quash the action of the respondents in denying Fundamental Right of the applicant guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India for consideration against a public post i.e. Multi Tasking Staff, selection for which is going on in pursuance of the Advertisement, Annexure A-1. (B).Direct the respondents to allow the applicant also to participate in the ongoing selection process for recruitment to the post of MTS as applicant is fully eligible and qualified to appear in the selection and he has submitted his application too apart from being sponsored by employment exchange and if he is selected he may be offered appointment from due date with all the consequential benefits. 2. Interim relief was also sought in the matter and on 08.02.2013 when the matter was heard regarding admission, it was directed that in the m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Rajwant Sandhu, Member (A). 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:- "8 (i). Quash action of the respondents whereby they have tagged fate of the applicants who are eligible in terms of Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Junior Telecom Officer with those who are not eligible being harsh, arbitrary and discriminatory inasmuch as most of the circles have already declared the result of only eligible candidates of the Limited Internal Departmental Competitive Examination held on 02.06.2013 and many of the incumbents are either undergoing training or have joined JTO after training, by withholding result of ineligible candidates who were allowed to participate provisionally, but result of the Punjab Circle has not been declared. (ii).For issuance of directions to the respondents to declare result of Limited Internal Departmental Competitive Examination (LICE) for promotion to the grade o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). 1. The applicant, a retired employee of Department of Posts, has filed this O.A. for issuance of direction to the respondents to reimburse him a sum of Rs.1,51,486/- on account of medical expenditure incurred by him on his own treatment, in emergency. 2. Written statement has been filed by the respondents opposing the claim of the applicants on the ground that CS (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 are not applicable to retired employees. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon the case of Mohinder Singh Vs. UOI etc. 2008 (2) SCT 239; Darshan Singh Rai Vs. Union of India, 2008 (2) SCT 242; P.S. Noor Vs. Union of India, 2008 (3) SCT 814; Kishan Chand Vs. Govt. of N.C.T and Others, 2010 STPL (Web) 625 DEL and also a decision of this Tribunal in O.A.No. 10-CH-2010 (Inder Sain Sachdeva Vs. Union of India and Others) decided on 22.7.2010 and O.A.No. 904-CH-2011 (Inder Sain Sachdeva Vs. Union of India and Others) rendered on 2.12.2011 which was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Mrs. Rajwant sandhu, Member (A). 1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- œ8 (ii). Honble Tribunal may kindly issue a mandamus directing the respondent-authorities to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds due to the death of the father of the applicant Shamsher Singh, Telephone Mechanic, on 26.08.2006. The applicant also prayed for a direction for quashing the impugned orders dated 21.06.2011 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Pers.IV) and for quashing of the order dated 22.07.2011 of DE (Administration) BSNL, Roopnagar, whereby the respondents have declined to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds.? 2. Brief facts of the matter are that the father of the applicant who was employed as Telephone Mechanic, Group œC? died while in the service of BSNL on 26.08.2006. The applicant applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 19.12.2006 (Annexure A-1). The c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). 1. The present O.A. has been filed by the applicant, seeking issuance of a direction to the respondents to place him in the pay-scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 relatable to the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 29.04.1998, revise his pension accordingly and to grant him the arrears thereof and also the consequential benefits accrued to him on such revision. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Respondent No. 3 recommended and forwarded the case of the applicant to fix his pay in the pay-scale of Rs.5000-150-8000 on promotional post of Supervisor w.e.f. the due date, vide communications dated 30.05.2007 and 14.09.2010 (Annexures A-4 and A-6 respectively), to Respondent No. 2, but nothing has been done thereupon. It is submitted that the applicant retired on attaining the age of suppuration on 31.01.2002.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant would be content, if a direction is issued to respondent No. 2 to take a final view in the mat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral). Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). 1. None is present on behalf of the applicant. Same was the position on 29.10.2013. We proceed to dispose of the OA under Rule 15 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the present OA has been filed against the selection process initiated for filling up the vacancies of Law Officers on contract basis due to non-issuance of interview letter to the applicants. Learned counsel makes a statement at the Bar that now the respondents are in the process of issuing advertisement for filling up the relevant vacancies on regular basis and in view thereof, the instant OA has become infructuous. 3. In view of the above, we find that the prayer of the applicants in the O.A. to the effect that they may be considered against the posts of Law Officer in the impugned selection process, has been rendered infructuous.4. The O.A. stands disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). 1. When the case came up for hearing on 18.12.2013, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. We decided to proceed under rule 16 of the C.A.T (Procedure) Rules, 1987, by hearing the learned counsel for the applicant and examined the material on the file. 2. In this O.A. the applicant has prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to release his salary from December, 2005 onwards with interest @ 18% per annum. 3. The facts in brief are to be noticed first. The applicant was appointed and started working as a Labourer in the office of Respondent No.3 at Jammu, having been appointed on 1.12.1977. A Court of enquiry was held for misappropriation of funds of civilian employees . The charge sheet has been filed before the Special Judge, CBI, Jammu. The applicant was not allowed to enter the office and mark his attendance against which he submitted a representation dated 30.3.2009. He filed SWP No. 916/2009 in the Honble JandK High Court, upon which ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
Sanjeev Kaushik , Member (J). 1. A concise statement of facts of the Original Application necessary for adjudication of the controversy involved herein would disclose that the applicants are working as Chief Law Assistants in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800+Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- in the Railway Claim Tribunal, Chandigarh. They are assigned duties to deal with the cases filed against the Railway Administration in various forums including Honble Apex Court. Their work includes legal advice, opinions in pending/disposed of court cases etc and sometimes they are required to appear before different forums to argue the matters. Vide Railway Boards letter dated 25.9.1995, permission was granted to Law Assistant/Chief Assistants at Zonal levels to get them enrolled as Advocates with the respective Bar Councils of the States, subject to certain conditions. 2. The induction at the lowest rung of the legal set up in the Zonal Railways including Northern Railway used to be Law Assistant which after ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral). Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). 1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant to withdraw the call letter issued to him for his employment in MEA (BOS-II) as reflected in the noting dated 18.12.2012 on the ground that he is in receipt of grade pay which is higher than the available for the deputation post. He has also sought issuance of a direction to the respondents to permit him to join and work as Security Assistant in the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). 2. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has a valuable right for consideration and appointment on deputation basis as a Security Assistant and excess grade pay would not make any difference and in any case when applications were invited his grade pay was only Rs.1,950/-, which was revised on 28.9.2012 to Rs.3200/-. He is not being called due to increase in his grade pay. The applicant has already submitted a representation dated 17.12.2012 by post, indicating his willingness...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Chandigarh
(Oral). Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J). 1. By means of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has impugned the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by respondent no. 3, vide which a sum of Rs. 16,200/- on account of Children Education Allowance and excess T.A payment of Rs. 500 reflected in the last pay certificate, has been recovered on the basis of an audit objection. 2. Facts are to be noticed first. The applicant herein initially joined Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti at Regional office, Chandigarh, in the office of Respondent no. 2 as a Stenographer w.e.f. 01.05.1989 on deputation basis and was subsequently absorbed permanently w.e.f 01.05.1991. The applicant was assigned an additional duty of the post of Assistant and worked in various sections including Establishment, Administration etc. In addition, the applicant was appointed as Presenting Officer in various cases. Considering his service record, he was promoted as Pers...
Tag this Judgment!