Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari, presently working as Professor, Radio-diagnosis in Lady Harding Medical College (LHMC), New Delhi, the applicant in the present Original Application, has moved MA No. 2424/2012 seeking certain amendments to the prayer in the OA viz. to direct the first and second respondents to allow the applicant to exercise her option as per the JIPMER (Amendment) Act, 2011. She has also sought direction of the Tribunal to initiate disciplinary action against the officers who have caused prejudice to her in rejecting her request for exercising fresh option to return back to the JIPMER. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents on the said MA and the reply affidavit has been filed on 17.12.2011 wherein the respondents submitted that the said amendment to the prayer clause is not maintainable and the MA deserves to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the applicant’s claim in the MA as to the amendment to the relief clause and other portions...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Through the instant Original Application, Shri R.P.S. Panwar - a retired ITS Officer, the applicant herein, is seeking the following main relief(s):- “8.03.That (Annexure A-1, A-2, A-3 and to the extent Annexure A-4 is applicable in respect of provisional pension and coming in the way of relief to applicant) be kindly declared as void abinitio and be aside; it be kindly also held that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction and in bad faith only by ignoring the staring law, rules and procedure as well as duty; 8.04.That applicant be kindly granted the revision as per 6th CPC and accordingly the leave encashment and other retiral dues, provisional pension, excepting ‘Gratuity’ with interest @ 12% per annum from date of their respect accruals. The prayer for release of deposits with interest in favour of Applicant under the CGEG Insurance Scheme is respectfully made at paragraph 9 below.̶...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A) This OA has been filed by the applicant assailing the implementation of the recommendations of the VIth Central Pay Commission (VIth CPC, in short) in which, as on 01.01.2006, lesser pay was fixed for the applicant in comparison to the fresh entrants and benefit of bunching principle was denied to him. The applicant has impugned the order dated 30.03.2010 at Annexure A-1, by which the respondents have denied any anomaly in the applicants pay fixation in the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, (R.P.Rules,2008, in short) and have stated that pay of those Government servants, who were already in service on 01.01.2006, cannot be fixed with reference to the pay of those who joined the Government as direct recruits on or after 01.01.2006, for which category a separate minimum pay in the running pay band has been prescribed at the entry level, for all the direct recruits appointed on or after 01.01.2006, which the VIth CPC had not recommended in case of those Government se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicants are working as Civilian Motor Drivers in the Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt. under the Ministry of Defence. Through this OA, they are challenging the action of the respondents in withdrawing a higher pay scale granted to them since the year 1999/97 along with orders for recovery of excess amount allegedly paid to them. The impugned order dated 30.11.2011 is under challenge. This is the second round of litigation. 2. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “a) quash and set aside the impugned Central Ordinance Depot letter No.3531/Docus/CMD/Estt/N1 dated 30-11-2011 (Colly) and directions to Respondents not to reduce the salary. b) declare the action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the salary of applicants illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and directions to refund the amount already deducted. c) pass such other or further order as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circums...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Veena Chhotray: As the main issue involved in all these OAs is identical, they are being disposed by this common order. The common issue of law raised for our adjudication is the legal sustainability of non-consideration of candidature as an OBC on the ground of the Caste Certificate, in the prescribed format, not being submitted within the cut off date, in contravention of the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement Notification. To be even more specific, the issue centres around the non-creamy layer certificate not being within the prescribed time limit of the preceding 3 years of the cut off date. 2. The applicant in the OA No.3985/2010 is represented by Shri R.K. Sharma and the applicants in OA Nos. 3244/2011 and 3245/2011 by Shri Subhash Mohanty. The respondents’ counsel in all these OAs is Shri S.M. Arif. We have given detailed hearing to the learned counsels on both the sides and also carefully considered the material on record. 3. The claims in all these OAs have a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
(ORAL) : MA No.2496/2012 This MA is filed for condonation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of some days in filing the RA is condoned. RA No.269/2012 2. The present review application has been moved by the respondents in OA No.1693/2012 seeking to recall the order dated 17.05.2012 passed in the aforesaid OA. The grounds taken by the review applicants are mainly based on the following averments: the original applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands as certain material facts relevant for adjudication of the case has been concealed and not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.05.2012. 3. Notice in the RA was issued to the original applicant on 13.09.2012. It is noted that service is complete. Despite the completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the review respondents. However, Shri R. N. Singh, Senior Central Government counsel for the review appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
OA Nos. 2135/2012, 2136/2012 and 2137/2012 filed by applicants questioning the order dated 25.06.2012 whereby they were transferred from NCT of Delhi to DDandDHI, AandNI and Lakshadweep were disposed of in terms of order dated 3.07.2012 with a direction that the representation, if any, preferred by applicants within one week would be decided by respondents expeditiously. Respondents were also directed not to give effect to the transfer order qua the applicants till disposal of said representations. Pursuant to said order, applicants made separate representations dated 9.07.2012 raising the common plea and praying for cancellation of their transfer ordered in terms of order No.14020/2/2011-UTS-II (Part file) dated 25.06.2012. The representations were addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Relying upon the guideline for transfer of posting of DANIPS officer, rules 12 and 13 of DANIPS Rules, 2003 and letter dated 23.06.2012 of DD and DNH administration ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs: “(i) quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 25.6.2012 (A-1) to the extent the applicant has been transferred out at the verge of retirement. (ii) quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2012. (iii) declare the action of respondents in transferring the applicant at hard station as illegal and arbitrary. (iv) allow the OA with exemplary cost.” 2. This is a matter of transfer from Delhi to Lakshadweep vide impugned orders dated 25.06.2012 whereby several DANIPS officers have been transferred, including the applicant whose name figures at serial number 12. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed OA No.2119/2012. Notice was issued to the respondents and fifteen days’ time was allowed to them to decide the representation of the applicant. Meanwhile, until deciding the representation, the impugned orders dated 25.06.2012, with regard to the applicant, were kept in abeyance. Vide o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant is an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH, in short) person, who was appointed as a Peon in the Directorate General of Supply and Disposal (DGSandD, in short) in the Department of Supply, Government of India on 06.03.1969. In the course of time, he got promotion as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC, in short) on 15.06.1987, and was confirmed on 31.12.1989. Consequent upon decentralization of DGSandD, he was transferred to Ministry of Defence (MoD, in short) w.e.f. 01.05.1992, and taken on the strength of MOD Secretariat from that date. On 29.06.1994, the Department of Personnel and Training fixed the range for promotions to the grade of Upper Division Clerk (UDC, in short) against the Select List vacancies for the year 1993 under the Zoning Scheme, and the range for Physically Handicapped (PH, in short) category was fixed as LDCs with 8 years’ approved service as on 30.06.1994. As the applicant had just been taken on the rolls of MOD two years back, f...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): The applicant is an employee of the Postal Department, working as Sorting Assistant at the New Delhi Railway Station, Transit Mail Office. The respondents had introduced a Scheme for conducting an All India Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE, in short) for Recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Posts (IPO, in short), and the examination for the year 2007 was conducted from 10th to 12th August, 2007. The result of that examination was declared on 26.02.2008 through Annexure R-1. Two of the candidates of Bihar Circle had challenged the result of that examination in OA Nos. 649/2008 and 146/2009 before Patna Bench of this Tribunal, challenging wrong preparation of the answer keys to certain questions, and the Patna Bench had directed the Department to consider their representations. Finding the objections raised to the answer keys to be correct, rechecking of all the answer sheets was done thereafter, and result of the rechecking was declared by...
Tag this Judgment!