Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicants are security guards in National Bureau of Plant Genetic Resources, Pusa Campus, New Delhi. A tender was given to one M/s. Ultra Security Services in 1996 to supply trained security personnel for the security of the building and area under the respondents. According to the applicants, this appointment through a middleman is a form of exploitation and violates Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 prohibiting employment through contractor of middleman in Govt. Departments. They rely on the following decisions :Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Unions and Ors.,R.K. Panda v. Steel Authority of India, 1995(6) SLR 665 = 1994(3) SLJ 227 (SC). (iv) Satyajit Majumdar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 1995(8) SLR 258 = 1996 (1) SLJ 259 (Calcutta--CAT).2. Learned Counsel for the applicants argues that the work in the National Bureau is of perennial nature and satisfies all the tests of Section 10(2) of the Contract Labour Act. He urges that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Applicant impugns Respondents' letter dated 27.11.1990 (Ann A-6), the I.O's Report dated 5.5.91 (Ann. A-7), the Disciplinary Authority's order dated 7.4.92 (Ann. A-11) and the Appellate Authority's order dated 13.11.92 (Ann. A-13) and prays for reinstatement with consequential benefits.2. Upon a compliant dated 17.2.90 received from one Shri B.S. Chauhan, resident of 1/351 Sadar Bazar. Delhi Cantt., New Delhi-110010 that applicant received Rs. 700/- from him to show favour to him by not taking any legal action in respect of a dispute between a truck driver and him, applicant was suspended by order dated 22.2.90 (Ann. A-1) and a Preliminary Enquiry under Rule 15(1) Delhi Police (P and A) Rules was ordered on 2.3.90 (Ann. A-2).3. As the P.E. reportedly substantiated the charges against the applicant of not taking legal action by misusing his official position and accepting illegal gratification and as the evidence and materials available on the file were not sufficient to prosecute t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The prayer in this Original Application is for a correction of date of birth from 23.2.1940 recorded by the respondents to 23.2.1946 on the ground that the discharge certificate and other documents received from the army indicate the date of birth as 23.2.1946.2. The applicant was recruited as a Cook in Artillery Depot Regiment, Nasik Road, Deolali on 23.2.1966 when he was 20 years old. His date of birth was recorded there as 23.2.1946 as evident from letter No.I241003/GNR (CK) Manohar Dutt/NE/LIb dated 14.10.1995 (Annexure-II).Even according to the admission of the respondents, respondent No. 4 affirmed and re-affirmed this date of birth by various letters and references and confirmed the same to the respondents also. The references by the respondents have arisen because the applicant joined the service of respondent No. 2 with effect from 1.1.1973. At that time his date of birth was recorded as 23.2.1940. The grievance of the applicant is it was a mistake and the applicant being ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The applicants, confirmed Inspectors of Delhi Police, are aggrieved because of (i) Respondents' failure in not convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC for short) proceedings since 1992 for the purpose of effecting regular promotions to the grade of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP for short) in Grade II Group B posts and (ii) adopting "pick and choose" policy to promote a large number of Inspectors to the rank of ACPs on ad-hoc/out-of-turn basis and even by adjusting then wrongly against ex-cadre posts. Consequently, they have sought reliefs in terms of quashing of Annexure A-1 tcolly orders dated 10.10.94 and seriesof other orders issued between 1995 and 1998 favouring unduly private respondents as shown in the amended memo of parties from Sl. Nos. 5 to 17.2. Annexure A-1 orders have been challenged on the basis that promotions effected through that order were in exercise of powers under Rule 24(1) of DANIPS Rules, 1971, which has now been superceded by 1995 Rules...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. This O.A. is an off-shoot of the applicant's earlier O.A. No.1608/97, Shri Ramesh Hanumant Rao Bhalekar v. Union of India and 3 Ors., decided by us by a common order dated 9.12.1997 along with O.A.No. 2018/97, Shri Anindy as under, Son of Shri Brahmajyoti Goshal v.Union of India and 2 others with following directions: "9. In the result, these applications succeed and are hereby allowed. The selection of Shri B.C. Mandal, (3rd respondent in O.A. 2018/97 and 4th respondent in O.A. 1608/97), for the post of Chief Controller of Explosive is quashed and the contesting respondents are directed to proceed to fill up the vacancy on the basis of the 1982 Recruitment Rules, as amended upto 1985, as also to consider the names of the two applicants in these applications in the light of the method of recruitment and eligibility conditions mention in columns 10 and 11 of the schedule to the 1982 Rules." 2. The grievance of the applicant in the present O.A., more of less, appears to be the same a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The first applicant-All India Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC for short) Employees Federation represents Group 'C and D employees and the second applicant-an Assistant (Group C), is an employee of the ESIC. They are aggrieved by A-l and A-3 (colly) communications dated 1.11.93. 13.1.91 and 7.5.91 respectively by which they have been denied the scale of pay (Rs. 1640-2900) given to Assistants and Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS for short) despite admission by both the respondents that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the applicants are the same as of Assistants in CSS. The dispute, therefore, basically relates to the parity in the pay scale sought for by the Assistants working in the ESIC vis-a-vis Assistants/Steno Gr. C in the CSS.2. Arguing strenuously for applicants, Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, learned senior Counsel, has assailed the denial of aforesaid pay scale to applicants on several grounds. We, however bring out the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. The main legal question for determination in this O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is whether Reserved category Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST for short) candidates appointed/promoted to posts, under the Union of India, on the basis of their merit and seniority and not on the basis of reservation, should be counted against the percentage of posts reserved for them or whether they shall be adjusted against the posts meant for general category candidates. Other ancillary issues have also been raised for consideration.2. The applicants, who are Group C Inspectors in Central Excise and Customs (CE & C for short), have vehemently opposed the decision of the official respondents in counting 23 SC and 9 ST inspector (CE & C) promoted to the posts of Superintendents (Group B Gazetted) on their own merit and seniority, against the posts reserved for backward communities, thus illegally and arbitrarily denying promotions to the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Applicant an Assistant Personnel & Welfare (AP&WO for short) in the office of High Commission of India. Dhaka is aggrieved by A-1 order dated 9.10.98 by which he has been as alleged, prematurely repudiated to be posted at Hqrs. New Delhi by 31.12.98. Consequently, he seeks to quash and set aside the aforesaid order dated 9.10.98 and issuance of directions to respondents to consider and permit him to complete the normal tenure of two years at Dhaka upto 15.7.99 as intended in respondents' order dated 26.2.1997.2. Mr. K.C. Mittal, learned Counsel for the applicant seeks to challenge the aforesaid orders of repatriation on the following grounds. (i) That the rules and instructions on the subject provide normal tenure of AP&WOs in High Commissions/Embassies abroad for two years at a lime. Therefore, the applicant should have been permitted to complete the period of two years upto 15.7.99, but due to mala fide intentions and arbitrary reasons respondents have prematurely rep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. As these two OAs involve similar questions of law and fact they are being disposed of by this common judgment.2. In this O.A. filed on 26.5.93 applicants S/Shri Nagesh Singh and B.Bhandari have impugned Finance Ministry's O.M. dated 25.5.88 and 7.7.88 promoting R-2 to7 from Grade IV to Gr. III (Asst. Director to Dy.Director) in Indian Economic Service, allegedly in violation of Rule 8(1) (b)(1) and Rule 13 (unamended) I.E.S. Rules 1961. A prayer has been made to quash the impugned Notification dated 22.9.89 amending Rule 13 IES Rules, and for promotion to Gr. III in IES from the date their juniors were promoted.3. Their case is that they joined IES Grade IV on 1.9.82. The process of recruitment from Gr. IV (Asst. Director to Gr. III Dy. Director) in IES is laid down in Rule 8 (1)(b)( 1) IES Rules which reads thus : (1) all the vacancies in this grade shall be filled by promotion from amongst Gr. IV officers who have completed not less than four years service on a regular/ basis in ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
1. Applicant impugns the filling up of the post of Assistant Traffic Costing Officer (ATCO) by transfer on deputation initiated by Circular dated 9.12.96 and prays that the post be filled up through promotion as per recruitment rules.2. Applicant contends that there are two posts of ATCO (Rs. 2000-3500), the RRs of which at Annexure-II, by which the posts are to be filled up by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation and failing both, by direct recruitment. For promotion, the source is from Technical Assistant (Rs. 2000-3200) working as Statistical CA of Railway Board with 2 years' regular service in the grade.Applicant contends that he is the seniormost T.A. (Rs. 2000-3200) in Dte, of Statistics and Economics (Cost Accounts Branch) of Railway Board and fulfills all the essential qualification prescribed in the RRs but respondents are not filling up the post as per RRs, but consequent to one of the posts falling vacant, instead of filling it up by giving him promotion as per...
Tag this Judgment!