Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): 1. On the issue of applicant’s claim for promotion on adhoc basis to the next higher post, this is his one more round of litigation. Earlier, in the OA No.3851/2010, he approached this Tribunal with the prayers to consider him for promotion to the post of Joint Director (Technical) on ad hoc basis and the OA was decided on 5.4.2011 in following terms :- “2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that the case of the applicant for promotion on ad hoc basis to the post of Jt. Director (Technical) has been referred to the Services Department to consider as to whether he can be given ad hoc promotion. 3. At this stage, we only direct the respondents to expedite consideration of the applicant for ad hoc promotion on the post of Jt. Director (Technical). They will deal with the matter expeditiously and preferably within eight weeks from today. The OA is disposed of. No costs.” 2. Pursuant to the above dir...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): 1. This case has a chequered history. Earlier the applicants have filed Writ Petition No.193/2009 before the High Court of Delhi against their non-selection to the posts of Staff Nurse in MCD and Health andFamily Welfare Department, pursuant to the advertisement against post code 071/07. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1.10.2010 holding that the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners in OBC category cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or unjustified, as the applications submitted by the petitioners were not accompanied by the OBC certificates issued by the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi and they have not even applied for the same before the cut off date for submission of the applications. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.902/2010 and the Division Bench vide order dated...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda: 1. Shri Ashok Kumar Vashisht, the applicant in the OA, joined as Junior Assistant on 05.02.2009 with andhra Pradesh Police and was promoted there as Senior Assistant on 27.05.2004 and he was posted in the 13th Battalion of APPSP, Mancherial. In response to the advertisement of National Investigating Agency (NIA in short) issued in April 2010 to fill up posts of Sections Officer (S.O.), he applied for the said post. The said advertisement/Circular inter alia indicated that the applications should be routed through proper channel accompanying the copy of documents like Bio-data, Annual Confidential Reports for five years, Disciplinary/Vigilance Clearance/Integrity Certificate and details of major and minor penalties imposed during the last ten years. It is the case of the applicant that Inspector General of Police (PCA) in his letter dated 25.08.2010 (page 18) addressed to the Director General of Police, andhra Pradesh informed that as the applicant was willing ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
S.C. Sharma: 1. All the above OAs involved the same controversy, have been instituted in order to challenge the validity of Rule 6(2) of Delhi Health Service Rules, 2009. OA No. 1453/2010 and OA No. 1048/2010 have been instituted in order to challenge the provisions of Rule 6(2) regarding inclusion of ad hoc/contractual appointed doctors in different government hospitals because it has been mentioned in Rule 6(2) that the doctors, who were appointed on or before 18.12.2006, will form the constitution of the cadre and these applicants-doctors were appointed in the Central Health Services cadre after conducting due process of selection by the UPSC; whereas ad hoc/contract doctors were appointed by Government of NCT of Delhi without following the normal procedure through UPSC. OA No. 1259/2011, OA No. 1209/2011 and OA No. 3936/2011 have been instituted by ad hoc/contract doctors appointed after 18.12.2006 and prior to 23.12.2009. Hence with the consent of the parties, and in order to avoi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
G.George Paracken, M(J) The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 03.12.2009 and 18.11.2010 of the disciplinary authority and appellate authority respectively in the proceedings initiated against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. Even though, the penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority was reduced to just a ‘Censure’, by the Appellate Authority, his contention is that he deserves no punishment at all in the present case. 2. The brief factual matrix are delineated here. While the applicant was working as a Driver with the then ADM (West) Shri Devesh Singh w.e.f. 24.04.2001, he was served with the Annexure-A7 Memorandum dated 16.5.2001. The charges leveled against the applicant were that he reported for duty late on 30.04.2001 and 02.05.2001 without prior intimation and authorization and when Sh. Devesh Singh asked him the reasons for the same, applicant mis-behaved with him and u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Veena Chhotray: 1. The applicant, an ex-Assistant under the Ministry of Defence has challenged the penalty of compulsory retirement on the charge of attempting to bribe an Officer for selection of certain aspiring candidates. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- “8.1 allow the OA and quash the impugned Memorandum of Charge dated 20.01.1999 (Ann. A-1), Penalty Order dated 31.08.2010 (Ann. A-2) and Appellate Order dated 14.03.2011 (Ann. A-3) with full back wages and all consequential benefits; and consequently 8.2 direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and release all the benefits including promotional benefits at par with junior counter parts as if no penalty was imposed upon the petitioner.” 2. The applicant and the respondents would be represented respectively by the learned counsels, Shri H.P. Chakravorti and Shri S.M. Arif. 3. A major penalty disciplinary proceeding under the CCS (CCA) Rule 14 was initiated against the applicant vide the Memorandum dated ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A): 1. The applicant, an ex-Assistant Teacher under the GNCTD has challenged the orders dated 18.05.2011 and 13.09.2011, respectively extending his period of probation for another year and terminating the services under sub-rule (1) of Rule-5 of the CCS (Temporary Service )Rules, 1965 after one month’s notice. By way of relief, the OA has sought quashing the aforesaid impugned orders along with declarations regarding the action of the respondents in this regard as illegal and a declaration for the applicant to be treated as a confirmed teacher. 2. The learned counsels Shri M.K. Bhardwaj and Shri B.N.P. Pathak would appear respectively for the applicant and the respondents. 3. The brief facts are that the applicant on being selected as Assistant Teacher (Primary) under the GNCTD had been issued the offer of appointment dated 31.12.2008. This was on temporary basis for two years, though likely to be made regular. It had also been stipulated that the appl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
M.L. Chauhan, Member (J): This case has a chequered history. Earlier the applicants have filed Writ Petition No.193/2009 before the High Court of Delhi against their non-selection to the posts of Staff Nurse in MCD and Health andFamily Welfare Department, pursuant to the advertisement against post code 071/07. The said Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 1.10.2010 holding that the action of the respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioners in OBC category cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or unjustified, as the applications submitted by the petitioners were not accompanied by the OBC certificates issued by the competent authority of the Government of NCT of Delhi and they have not even applied for the same before the cut off date for submission of the applications. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged before the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in LPA No.902/2010 and the Division Bench vide order dated 28...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A): The grievance of the applicant, in this OA, is that he has been refused/denied duty w.e.f. 27.03.2012. He has, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following reliefs: The respondents be directed to forthwith assign duty to the applicant and allow him to discharge his duty regularly without any hindrance/obstruction etc. with further directions to the respondents to accord all consequential benefits to the applicant including continuity of service, payment of salary/wages etc.. The respondents be further directed to discard the adverse medical opinion of the DTC Doctor and get the applicant medically examined by an independent board at any Govt. hospital to ascertain his medical fitness, if required. Allow the cost of the proceedings Any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2.1. The brief facts of the case, as set out in the OA, are that the applicant had been employed as Driver in the Delhi Transport Corpora...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
A.K. Bhardwaj: 1. On 29.8.2008 two PCR calls vide DD No.33-A and 34-A were received at Police Station, Alipur regarding snatching of Rs.500/- by a police official, which were marked to SI Bharat Bhushan for enquiry. He reached P.S. Alipur and met complainant Pradeep S/o Shri Angad who identified the applicant as the person, who removed Rs.500/- from his wallet. During personal search a note of Rs.500/- was recovered from the pocket of the Constable which was returned to the complainant. SI Bharat Bhushan recorded the statement of the complainant namely, Sh. Pradeep wherein he confirmed that the applicant had snatched Rs.500/- which he received back. However, he declined to get a criminal case registered against the applicant for his action of snatching Rs.500/- from him. The applicant was charge sheeted for committing gross misconduct and misuse of authority. Summary of allegations is placed on record as Annexure A-4 to the OA. Ms. Nirmala Devi was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enqui...
Tag this Judgment!