Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, communicated to him by order dated 30.11.95, regularising him in a Group 'D' post of Khallasi. His claim is that he should have been regularised in Group 'C' post as skilled Fitter.2. The brief facts of the case arc that the applicant was engaged as temporary Fitter under Inspector of Works, Gajraula w.e.f 5.9.74 and according to him, he had been continuously working as a Fitter with the respondents. These averments have been made in paragraph 4.1 of the OA and in the reply filed by the respondents, it is noted that they have admitted these facts. The applicant has staled that he was sent for medical examination in 1983 and he was found fit and according to him he was appointed and continued to work as Fitter for more than 20 years. He has submitted that the respondents had failed to hold any screening in his case until 199 1 when he was called and thereafter the impugned order dated 30.11.95 was issued regularising him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 31.1.1996 and subsequent promotion order passed by the respondents promoting Respondent 5, Shri O.K. Vijh as Research Officer (Engg.) w.e.f. 4.3.1996.2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was recruited directly by the U.P.S.C. as Research Assistant (Engg.) (RA Engg.) and joined the post on 14.6.1985. Respondents 5 and 6, namely, S/Shri O.K. Vijh and G.D. Sharma who were working earlier in the feeder grade of Supervisor had been promoted as RA (Engg.) on regular basis w.e.f 30.1.1985. The respondents have stated that at that time the applicant was considered senior to Respondents 5 and 6. This is also shown in the seniority list issued by the respondents by OM dated 23,2.88 for RA (Engg.) as on 1.2.1988, although in the OM itself it is mentioned that the seniority list of RA (Engg.) is as on 1.1.1998.Admittedly, the respondents held DPC on 25,1.88 to consider the pr...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant, while working as Sub-Post Master in 1974, was alleged to have accepted a tribe of Rs. 100/-. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.7.74 on the ground that the criminal case was pending against him. The applicant was eventually convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 161 IPC read with Section 5(1) (d) and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, by a judgment dated 31.3.1976 by the Trial Court. The applicant filed an appeal against the judgment in the High Court of Delhi. The appeal was allowed and the conviction and sentence were set aside by the judgment dated 12.2.87 on the ground that sanction for the prosecution has not been accorded by the competent officer and that sanction also suffers from the Vice of non-application of mind. Thereafter, after obtaining a valid sanction for prosecution the applicant was prosecuted on the same charges before Criminal Court at Delhi. By judgment dated 24.10.1994 the applicant was acquitted of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant was working as UDC under the Government of NCT Delhi.He was issued a memorandum of charge on 27.4.1989 wherein the following four articles of charge had been levelled against him. Shri R.C. Gupta is habitual of absenting himself unauthorisedly when leave was refused to him by the Supdt. from 1.2.89 to 28.2.89, he threatened him with dire consequences. Whenever he absents himself he never bothers to handover keys of store to the supdt. or to make any alternative arrangements for supply of ration etc. to inmate. A substantial shortage excess was detected in stores which was physically verified by the JAO (H.Q.)" The applicant denied the charges and thereafter an enquiry had been conducted by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer examined the witnesses on the side of the prosecution and no witness had been examined by the applicant nor he offered himself as a witness. The enquiry officer, in the consideration of the evidence found that the charges are proved. The disc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. All the three OAs filed by the same applicant are being disposed of by this common order.2. The reliefs sought for by the applicant in these OAs are as follows - In OA No. 2221/ 94 the applicant has sought a direction to the respondents to hold review DPCs for his promotion and confirmation as Deputy Legal Adviser and Additional Legal Adviser with reference to the dates on which the case of Shri N. Krishnamurthy were considered and that similarly his further promotions to the grades of Joint Secretary, Additional Secretary, Special Secretary and Secretary be reviewed with consequential difference of pay with interest as also the exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. one lakh as compensation. In OA No. 429/95 he has apart from the aforesaid reliefs also sought for payment of arrears of pay with interest. In OA No. 432/95 he has sought a direction to the respondents to hold a review DPC with reference to the promotion of Shri N. Krishnamurthy to the grade of Joint Secretary and Lega...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. A both the Original Applications are directed against the same order and both the applicants were subjected to the same common disciplinary proceedings, they are being disposed of by this common order.2. The applicants in the two OAs namely, ASI Dhan Singh and Constable Hoshiar Singh were served with a summary of allegations. After the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was recorded, the enquiry officer framed the charge as follows: "You, Inspr. Ram Narain, No.D-1/29, ASI Dhan Singh, No.2028/SW, HC Dilawar Singh, Ct. Kirpal Singh, Ct. Sukh Ram and Ct. Hoshiar Singh are hearby charged that while you were all posted in the Vigilance Staff of South-West Distt., you with your mutual connivance extorted Rs. 22,000/- from Dr. Hosiar Singh r/o Vill. Fatehpur fieri, Mehrauli, Delhi by threatening him that a complaint against Dr. Hoshiar Singh had been received in your office to the effect that he possessed a false qualification certificate. On 13.11.90, you ASI Dhan Singh, HC Dilawar Si...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 7.10.1998 at the instance of Respondent 1, that is the General Manager, Northern Railway, transferring him on administrative grounds from Delhi Division. CPC/MUT to Ambala Division.2. Shri B.S. Mainee, learned counsel for the applicant, has very vehemently submitted that the respondents cannot transfer the applicant from Delhi Division to Ambala Division and the impugned order is illegal arbitrary and discriminatory. He has stated that the seniority of Parcel Clerks/Chief Parcel Clerks is division-wise and they can only be transferred within the Division. The applicant was working as Chief Parcel Clerk (CPC) at Meerut Cantonment, Delhi Division when an incident had occurred on 21.8.1998. A person had approached him to book his cycle from Meerut Cantt to Swai Madhopur. A sum of Rs. 40/- was paid towards freight for the cycle and the applicant had booked it for transportation and gave the receipt to the person co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents dated 21.8.1995 forfeiting three years of service permanently entailing reduction in his pay during which period he will also not earn increments (Annexure A-1). The period of suspension from 6.9.1994 to 17.5.1995 has also been treated as period not spent on duty. He has challenged the show cause notice dated 18.5.1995 before this order was passed as well as the appellate authority's order dated 4.3.1996 rejecting his appeal.2. While the applicant was posted at Police Post Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station, he was placed under suspension by order dated 9.9.199-4. He was proceeded departrnentally under Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, on a complaint made by one Shri Atul Sharma, by order dated 27.10.1994. The relevant portion of the summary of allegations against the applicant reads as under: "It is alleged against HC Sumer Singh No. 295/Cr. that while posted at PP Hazrat Nizamuddin on 4.9.94 at about 10.15 PM Shri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. This OA has been filed by the Central Health Service Regularly Appointed Doctors' Forum (hereinafter) referred to as to 'the regular doctors') impugning the order passed by respondents dated 8.12.1998 granting non-functional selection grade (hereinafter referred to as 'the selection grade') to the Central Health Service doctors who though initially appointed on adhoc basis were regularised on the basis of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P.P. C. Rawani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (1992) 1 SCJ 221=(1992) I SC331=1992(1) SLJ 69 (SC) (hereinafter referred to as 'the regularised doctors').2. The main contention of the applicants is that respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 8.12.1998 has violated the directions given by the Apex Court in Dr. Rawani's case (supra). The case of the applicants is that they are doctors who had been selected and appointed through the UPSC in accordance with the relevant rules. As per the Supreme Court's orders in Rawani...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Applicant had filed this O.A, impugning respondents orders dated 6.5.97 (Annexure A-l) compulsorily retiring him from service w.e.f.5.5.97 under FR 56(j) upon attaining the age of 55 years. He also impugned respondents connected orders dated 26.5,97 (Annexure A-2): dated 17.9.97 (Annexure A-3); dated 19.9.97 (Annexure A-4): dated 19.9.97 (Annexure A-5) and dated 6/7.10.97 (Annexure A-6). He sought reinstatement, continuity in service with all consequential benefits including back wages and retention of Government accommodation.2. It is not denied that by respondents subsequent letter dated 21.1.99 a copy of which was shown to us during hearing and which has been brought on record, upon applicant's representation, he has been ordered to be reinstated in service. By Paragraph 2 of that letter dated 21.1.99 the intervening period between the date of applicant's premature retirement and his date of reinstatement has been ordered to be treated as eligible leave.3. It is this which is th...
Tag this Judgment!