Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
(ORAL) Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs: “(i) To call for records and quash the orders dated 21.01.2003, 17.02.2003 and 24.08.2011, which have been made not only on erroneous ground but are in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) To quash the departmental proceedings initiated against the Applicant as the same has been conducted in violation of rules of the land and in violation of principles of natural justice.”2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the applicant while working as driver at DTC Depot-II, Hari Nagar was proceeded departmentally and ultimately vide impugned order dated 21.01.2003 (Annexure A-1), respondent No.3 imposed the punishment of stoppage of next due two increments with cumulative effect. The order passed by the disciplinary authority (DA) was challenged by filing an appeal and the respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
The OA-173/2009 had been allowed vide the Tribunal’s order dated 03.09.2009. However, on a challenge through the W.P.(C) No. 3274/2010, vide the Delhi High Court’s order dated 30.03.2011 the aforesaid order of the Tribunal has been set aside. Reviving the O.A., it has been remanded for fresh adjudication on merit in light of the observations made in the High Court’s order. 2. The applicant superannuated as a Superintending Engineer (SE) under the DDA on 30.09.1995. At the time of the retirement, he was in the pay scale of Rs. 3700-5000/-, replaced after the Fifth CPC as Rs.12000-16500/-. His pension was fixed accordingly. The applicant, however, has been agitating claims for re-fixation of pension on the basis of certain recommendations by the Fifth CPC and consequent decisions thereafter. The claim of the applicant is for revision of pension treating the last pay drawn in the scale of Rs.14300-18300/- w.e.f. 01.01.1996. His representation was last rejected vide the D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
JusticeS.C.Sharma, Acting Chairman: Instant Original Application has been instituted for the following reliefs: “(a) Summon the relevant records pertaining to grant of as well as revocation of the 3rd Financial upgradation under MACPS to Nursing personnel (ANS/DNS cadre) in various Central Government Hospitals in Delhi. (b) Quash and set aside the Office Memorandum No. A.11015/01/2011-N dated 9.12.2011 issued by the Respondent No.1. (c) Quash and set aside order No.3-2/2011-Admn.(III)N/SS1/2011 dated 20.12.2011 issued by Safdarjung Hospital (Respondent No.5) and order no. F.No.-23-2/NS (Admn.)/11/6858 dated 30.12.2011 issued by the Dy. Director Admn, DGHS, Lady Hardinge College and Smt. S. K. Hospital (Respondent No.6). (d) Issue appropriate orders directing the Respondents not to issue any further order(s) revoking the 3rd Financial upgradation in Grade Pay Rs.6600/- under the MACPS from the ANS/DNS cadre in PB-3 Rs.15600-39100 in Hospitals under the Central Go...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
ORAL: Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) 1. Applicant has challenged order dated 10.07.1998 whereby he was removed from service, order dated 14.12.1998 whereby his appeal was rejected, order dated 07.10.2003 whereby his revision was rejected. He has further sought direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits including the back wages. 2. The brief facts as stated by the applicant are that he was served with a charge-sheet in 1996 for unauthorized absence. He had produced the medical certificate showing that his wife and mother were sick but without appreciating those certificates, Enquiry Officer gave his report holding the charge as proved against the applicant. On the basis of findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, disciplinary authority removed him from service vide order dated 10.07.1998 (page 33). Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal but his appeal was rejected on 14.12.98 (page 35) as barred by time without going into the merits of the ca...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Sudhir Kumar: 1. The applicant of this OA was appointed against the post of a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT, in short) (Science-B) against the posts notified for the year 1983-84 by a Staff Selection Boarded headed by Respondent No.2. In that process of selection, 1492 candidates were selected for appointments on the posts of TGTs in various subjects, including Science-B, and it was specifically mentioned that the panel of selected candidates will remain valid till all the selected candidates were offered appointment. An offer of appointment was issued to the applicant in respect of this panel only four years later, through Annexure R-3 dated 29.1.88, and once she accepted the offer, she was offered the post of TGT Science-B through Annexure A-4 dated 08.02.1988. The applicant accepted this appointment through her letter of acceptance dated 11.2.1988 (Annexure A-5). 2. In the meanwhile, another process of selection had been undertaken by the respondents in the year 1986 in which also t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. The review applicant has instituted the instant Review Application under Section 22(3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 with prayer to review the order passed by this Tribunal on 29.11.2011 in OA No.1105/2010. 2. We heard Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the review applicant. 3. We are passing the order in the Review Application at the admission stage without issuing any notice to the review respondents, being fully aware that no prejudice would be caused to them. 4. Before we examine the contentions advanced by the learned counsel, we note that the RA attracts delay and latches. As per the CAT (Procedure) Rules, the RA must be filed within 30 days from the date of the order, which, in the present RA, means the RA should have been filed on or before 29.12.2011 but the RA has been filed in the Tribunal on 20.03.2012 after a delay of more than 75 days. However, the applicant moved th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Sudhir Kumar: 1. The applicant, of this OA, is before us seeking the quashing of Office Order No.6333 dated 11.8.2011/12.8.2011 issued by the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry proceedings against him. Through the impugned order, it was stated by the Enquiry Officer as follows:- “No. 6333 Deptt. Enquiry/10/EO-III/7315/ND dated 11/12.08.2011 Proceedings dated 11.08.2011 against N.M. Sherawat, Inspector (U/S), CBI/EOU-IV/N.Delhi. I. Whereas the Departmental Proceedings against N.M. Sherawat has been fixed on this day i.e. 11.08.2011 for further enabling the C.O. to submit the list of defence documents and defence witnesses if any but he did not attend the enquiry on this date also. Earlier this opportunity was given to him on 3.08.2011 and 5.08.2011 but again he did not attend the enquiry. The charged officer N.M. Sherawat, was also informed vide proceedings dated 5.08.2011 that after the proceedings dated 11.08.2011, regular enquiry will commence on day today basis. II. A...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): MA 383/2012: MA 383/2012 has been filed for preponement of the date of hearing of the OA. It is stated that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant initiated in 1991 have still been shown as continuing, depriving the applicant of even one promotion since then. Further, no counter reply in the OA has been filed in spite of three opportunities given, which is causing prejudice to the applicant. Notices had been issued in the MA on 13.2.2012. However, no reply to the MA has been filed. The MA is accordingly allowed. OA 3628/2011: The OA had been filed on 03.10.2011 and notices had been issued on 04.10.2011. However, despite the respondents having been granted sufficient opportunities (including a last opportunity) by this Tribunal to file reply vide orders dated 5.12.2011, 5.1.2012 and 31.01.2012 the reply has not been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that it is not in the interest of the applicant that the OA be allowed to be ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicant has challenged the order of the respondents dated 25.04.2011 in terms of which although he has been allowed light duty in the Ticket Section as he was medically unfit for the post of Conductor as per the Certificate given by the DTC Medical Board, he has not been paid the emoluments during the period he remained absent on medical rest w.e.f. 18.8.2008 onwards due to no leave balance in his credit. 2. The brief facts of the case, as are relevant, are that the applicant had joined as Conductor in the Delhi Transport Corporation in 1982. In 1997 while he was on duty, he met with an accident after which he was assigned table duty w.e.f. 17.05.2002. It is stated that in the year 2004, he again fell down and fractured his right leg. Thereafter on 15.03.2007, he had requested for light table duty but was not assigned the same. On the other hand, a chargesheet dated 10.06.2008 had been issued to him for absenting himself from duty una...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): 1. In this OA, the applicants (three in number) are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in non-implementation of Establishment Order (EO) No.85 dated 15.01.2010 [Annexure A1] issued by Respondent No.3 (Vice Chairman Delhi Development Authority) [even copies of which have been circulated to all the concerned], in terms of which the Stenographers recruited before 01.01.1979 who were placed in the unified scale of Rs.330-15-405-EB-455-455-15-500-20-700 would be entitled to the benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and Rs.10000-15200 at the time of eligibility in their hierarchy on completion of 12 and 24 years of service respectively. However, while doing so, the benefit of fixation of pay under FR-22(C) if given earlier would have to be adjusted. 2. The applicants have sought the following reliefs: pass orders for the grant of first and second ACP by directing the respondents to implement the EO No.85 dated 15.01.2010 with all...
Tag this Judgment!