Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ391CAT
1. Sh. Suraj Bhan has filed this O.A. against the penalty of reduction in pay by three stages in the time scale of pay imposed upon him with immediate effect with a further direction that he would earn his first increment in the reduced stage after one year vide order dated 13.11.96 (Annexure A). He was, at the time, a Sales Tax Officer incharge of Ward No. 46 (Old). He has also challenged the order dated 13.12.96 (Annexure AA) by which his pay has been fixed in accordance with the punishment order aforesaid. By bringing an amendment to the O.A., he has also challenged the order dated 10.2.98 passed by the Lt. Governor, Delhi, in the Review Petition filed by the applicant in January, 1997. The main grounds taken are that the Lt. Governor's order inflicting punishment on the applicant is perverse and is based on no evidence.The respondents have controverted the issues raised by the applicant.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records. We now proce...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. In the aforesaid two O.As, the applicants have impugned the action and orders passed by the respondents in not promoting them from Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors by placing them in List 'F' (Ministerial/Executive) in terms of Rule 17 (iii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'). Both these cases were tagged together as the learned Counsel for the parties have submitted that the issues raised are identical and hence they are also being disposed of by a common order.2. For the sake of convenience, the facts in O.A. 1415/96 are referred to in order to focus on the issues raised in the cases. The applicant, Shri Uma Kant Tiwari, has impugned the order dated 6.5.1996 passed by the respondents and has prayed that the same may be set aside with the direction to bring his name between Serial Nos. 16 and 17 of the list and promote him to the rank of Inspector (Min.) with all consequential benefits. The applicant joined Delhi Polic...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ282CAT
1. The applicant has impugned the order passed by the respondents dated 21.11.96 (Annexure A-1) in the reply to his representation regarding his seniority in the post of Booking Clerk.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Peon in July, 1977 with the respondents and was later selected to the post of Coaching Clerk in 1983. After having passed the necessary examination, he was placed in the panel of successful candidates for the posts of Booking Clerk and was deputed to undergo two months training at the Zonal Training School (ZTS), Chanduasi from 4.2.84 to 3.4.84. In that training, admittedly, he did not pass in one paper, namely, Coaching Theory and, therefore, had to do it in the supplementary examination. According to the rules, the applicant was required to pass the supplementary examination for the training course within one year. The issue raised in this case is whether the applicant had done so or not or whether the delay in pa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The learned Counsel for the parties in the aforesaid three Original Applications (O.A. 1311/97, O.A. 1312/97 and O.A. 1313/97), have submitted that the issues involved in these cases are identical and so they have been heard together. Accordingly, these cases are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in Satya Prakash Tripathi and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (OA 1312/97) have been referred to.2.The grievance of the applicants in the aforesaid three applications arises out of the action taken by the respondents in respect of recruitment for the posts of Assistant Station Master (ASM)/Enquiry-cum-Reservation Clerk (ERC) in the Northern Railways against Category Nos. 1 and 2 of Employment Notice No. 1/79-80 (Annexure A-I). According to the applicants, for no fault of theirs, the respondents are giving them seniority from the date they had been selected and posted as Clerks, that is 1.9.1994, although they had been selected by the aforesaid Empl...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order dated 8.1.1997 (Ann. A. 1) passed by Respondent 2 promoting three persons, including Respondent 3 Shri Jai Ram from Turner Grade-III to Turner Grade-II with immediate effect.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was originally appointed in Moradabad Division of the Northern Railway.That Division had issued the Office Order dated 16.6.84 provisionally confirming him as Turner Grade-III. The applicant had requested the official respondents to transfer him to Delhi Division because of certain personal problems, which was accepted by them. He was relieved from Moradabad Division on 30.11.89 (Ann. A. 4) to report to Delhi Division. He has, however, fairly submitted that since he was transferred to Delhi Division at his own request, he was posted in Tughalakabad Diesel Shed and he has to be appointed at bottom seniority in accordance with the relevant rules. He has relied upon Rule 312 of the Indian Railway Establishment Ma...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Respondent no. 2 advertised for appointment for the post of Dietician in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of N.C.T. of Delhi in November, 1999 and in pursuance of it, the applicants had applied. There were only two posts of Dietician. It appears that more than 100 applications had been received by the respondents and hence respondents had adopted the 'short listing' keeping higher qualifications and the applications were accordingly screened. Since the applicants had not fulfilled the higher qualification prescribed for short listing, they were not called for the interview. Aggrieved by the same they have filed the present OA. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that the basis for short listing was contrary to the instructions issued by respondent No. 2 which mandated either higher qualifications and experience or more experience and not only keeping higher qualifications.2. It is the case of the respondents that the candidates with three ye...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. This is an application filed by the Homeopathic doctors appointed on contract basis by the National Capital Territory of Delhi Administration. The applicants 20 in number are seeking parity in scale of pay and allowances, leave, increments, maternity leave and also benefits of service conditions as are admissible to other regular Medical Officers (Homoeopathy) [MO(H) for short] from the date of their appointment and to treat them as having continued in service from the date of their first appointment ignoring the break of one or two days given in their service, till regular appointments are made to the post.Applicants have also prayed that in the event of the post of MO(H) being filled by regular method, regular recruits shall first be posted against vacant posts and after all the vacant posts are filled, should the regular recruits replace the present applicants, such replacement shall be on the basis of lastcome first go, Applicants have also sought age relaxation to the extent o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the action and order passed by the respondents is not awarding him the benefit of the ad hoc service rendered as Stenographer Grade 'D' in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 during the period from 5.4.1989 to 16.6.1993, vide order dated 28-7/3-8.1995. By this order the respondents have rejected her request for consideration of the promotion service w.e.f. 17.6.1993 to 20.4.1994 as also counting her ad hoc service from 5.4.1989 to 16.6.93 for the purpose of pay fixation, leave, pension, seniority and Bonus etc.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant had applied for a vacancy of Stenographer Grade 'D' against the advertisement issued by the respondents on 8.10.1988. She was selected through a test for recruitment held by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) for this post but was offered the post on ad hoc basis which she had accepted w.e.f. 5.4.1989. The applicant continued in that capacity till 16.6.1993 when her services were termina...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant has claimed the following reliefs in the OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985:- (i) To respondents No. 1 and 2 to take back the applicant as J.P.O. in the cadre post in the DGS & D in which post the applicant has the lien. (ii) To respondents 3 and 4 to relieve the applicant to enable him to revert back to his lien post in the DGS & D. (iii) To quash the wrongful and retrospective allotment cancellation order dated 30.8.96 and allow the applicant to continue in the Central Govt. General pool accommodation, and (iv) To pass any other order as deemed fit and necessary to protect the legitimate rights of the applicant including his right to continue in the accommodation on payment of normal licence fee." 2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that after following the policy decision taken by the Government of India to decentralise part of the Central Govt. purchase functions carried on by Respondents 1 and 2 i.e. Directorate Ge...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents rejecting his request for inclusion of his name in the Promotion List 'A' dated 4.1.1996, 22.3.1995 and 13.5.1991.2. The applicant, who had been enrolled as Constable in Delhi Police had been proceeded against departmentally. The penalty of forfeiture of two years approved service temporarily for one year entailing proportionate reduction in his pay was imposed on him by order dated 23.5.1989, which was upheld by the appellate authority by order dated 6.3.1990. The applicant had filed O.A.1524/90, which was disposed of by order dated 31.8.1994 (Annexure A-9). While this O.A. was pending, the applicant had moved Miscellaneous Application which was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 15.3.1991. In this order, the respondents were directed to depute the applicant for training in the Lower School Course (LSC) provisionally, subject to the outcome of O.A.I 524/90. In Tribunal's order dated 31.8.1994, it was directed a...
Tag this Judgment!