Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. When this case is taken up for consideration learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this Original Application with liberty to file a fresh one with appropriate pleadings and prayers. Permission is granted. 2. Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn in the above terms. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant is presently working as Postman at Malayinkeeyil Post Office within the jurisdiction of Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been denied transfer and posting at Poojappura Head Office though such a request made by him has been pending since long. It is pointed out by the applicant that notwithstanding the said long pending request the Department has appointed respondent No. 4 at Poojappura against one of the two vacancies available there. He contends that he can be accommodated in the other vacancy. 2. Learned counsel for the respondents after getting instructions submits that the applicant cannot be shifted now from Malayinkeeyil and posted at Poojappura since the ensuing vacancy at Malayinkeeyil cannot be filled up at the present juncture. Anyhow, I do not propose to deal with the above contentious issue at this stage since learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant will be satisfied if a direction ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
M.V. Sabu, Advocate. A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. When this case is taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant does not intend to pursue the matter any further since the relief sought for has already been granted by the respondents. 2. The above submission is recorded and the Original Application is closed as infructuous....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Minnie Mathew, Administrative Member 1. The applicants in this O.A are aggrieved by the delay and inaction of the respondents in including them in the Statutory Pension Scheme inspite of the fact that many of their juniors in the select list were given the benefit of Statutory Pension Scheme which existed prior to 01.01.2004 . 2. It is the case of the applicants that they appeared for the departmental examination in November, 2002. However, their appointments as Postmen were unnecessarily delayed by the respondents. Had their appointment been conducted in accordance with law, they would have got regular appointment in time and also the benefit of the Statutory Pension Scheme. They further contend that their junior in the select list who had approached this Tribunal in O.A. No. 449/2012 has already been included in the CCS Pension Scheme by the respondents. They have, therefore, pleaded that the benefit given to their junior, Smt. V. Bindhu, in Annexure A-4 may be extended to them. They...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member, J. 1. Applicant retired from service on June 30, 2010 while working as Superintendent, Postal Stores Depot, Thiruvananthapuram. Admittedly Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the applicant prior to his retirement. The primary grievance of the applicant in this Original Application is that the Department is dragging their feet in the matter of the Departmental Proceedings pending against him. He contends that the Department is not taking efficacious steps to complete the process with the result his retiral benefits are being withheld. 2. Respondents have vehementally denied the above allegation. It is contended by them that all possible steps were taken at the appropriate time. It is pointed out that the Inquiry Officer has already submitted his report after examining larger number of witnesses and considering numerous documents. Be that as it may, it is the admitted position that the applicant has submitted his response to the report filed by ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member, J. 1. The applicant claims that he had worked as a Casual Labourer under the Permanent Way Inspector (Construction) in Trivandrum Division for about five months between February and July, 1979. Thereafter, he had worked again under the same authority holding work card No. LT1 No.454. Annexure A-1 is stated to be a true photocopy of the said card. Applicant further claims that he had worked again under the Permanent Way Inspector at Nagarcoil Junction between June and October, 1980. At that time he was issued a card bearing No.LT 1612. His name was registered in the relevant record in the month of March, 1987 as notified by the Divisional authorities. However, it is conceded by the applicant that his name did not figure in the seniority list of casual labourers retrenched prior to January 1, 1981, which was published during 1997 as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is further admitted by him that he had not attended the interview held in August 199...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. J. 1. Applicants are stated to be working in the grade of Postman within the jurisdiction of Thiruvananthapuram South Postal Division. Their grievance is that they have been denied pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules treating them as though they had entered service after the introduction of the new pension scheme which came into force on January 1, 2004. According to the applicants they had entered service as Gramin Dak Sevaks much prior to January 1, 2004 and were selected and appointed to the grade of Postman against the vacancies that existed in 2002 against the merit quota of Gramin Dak Sevaks. It is in the above circumstances they have filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- "i. to declare that the applicants are entitled to be treated as appointed as postman with effect from 2002 the date of occurrence of vacancies for fixation of pay, pensionary benefits etc. and to direct the respondents to grant all conseq...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member, J. 1. Applicant who is presently working in the grade of Sub Postmaster has filed this Original Application challenging her transfer from Chingoli to Pennukkara. She has raised several contentions in support of her plea that the above order of transfer dated June 26, 2012 is wholly illegal and arbitrary. 2. Any how, today when the case is taken up for consideratioin it is brought to my notice that Respondent No.1 has passed an order on March 6, 2014 allowing the applicant to continue at Chingoly till she completes her tenure. A copy of the said order is made available for perusal which is taken on record and marked as Annexure "X-1". 3. Learned counsel submits that the applicant does not intend to pursue the matter any further in view of the above order issued by respondent No.1. 4. Original Application is therefore closed. No costs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Member (J). 1. Applicants in this bunch of 94 Original Applications are residents of various Islands in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. Admittedly, all the applicants have been working on casual/daily wage basis in various departments under the Administration. All of them were engaged on casual basis for 89 days and re-engaged after a technical break of one or two days. This process has been going on in the case of quite a number of them for the last 10 to 20 years while in the case of a large number of others, such engagements are for 5 to 10 years and others are for two/three years or less. But in majority of the cases (in 80 Original Applications), these casual employees were engaged/disengaged by Village/Dweep Panchayats and/or District Panchayats. For the sake of convenience, these cases are categorized as "Panchayath and Non-Panchayath". 2. The common grievance of all the applicants is that their services are not being regularized even though they have been work...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member, J. 1. The applicant is presently working as Deputy Collector (Revenue Recovery) in the Kerala State Civil Service. He contends that he is now ligible to be considered for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service. His grievance is that the respondents have not initiated appropriate steps to start the process for such promotion. He had submitted Annexure A-2 representation before Respondent No. 2, the Chief Secretary in January, 2014 and requested him to forward the necessary papers to Respondent No.1. It is also pointed out by him that such a representation submitted before Respondent No. 4 was forwarded to Respondent No.3 in October, 2013 as could be seen from Annexure A-1. But, no action has been taken by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 so far to place the necessary papers before Respondent No. 1 to initiate the process for promotion from among the eligible candidates in the State Civil Service. It is in the above circumstances, that the applicant has file...
Tag this Judgment!