Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicants are retired Electrical Chargeman (B) in the Southern Railway. The post of Electrical Chargeman (B) carried the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-2300/-. On the basis of basic pay they were drawing in the above pay scale the pension of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants was fixed upon their retirement on 31.8.1995, 31.3.1992 and 31.5.1993 at Rs. 846/-, Rs. 838/- and Rs. 697/- respectively. The pension of the applicants was revised with effect from 1.1.1996 by fixing their pay in the revised pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- in the Vth pay revision. The corresponding replacement scale of Rs. 5000-8000/- is Rs. 9300-34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/- in the VIth pay revision. Pursuant to the order of the Department of Personnel and consequential orders of Railways the 1st applicant's pension had been fixed at Rs. 6750/- as per letter dated 22.12.2008 at Annexure A5. Subsequently the pension of the 1st applicant had been reduced to Rs. 5817/- with retrospective effect from 1.1.2006 fro...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member - 1. A fabulous safety related retirement scheme for Drivers and Gangman was introduced by the Railways vide Railway Board circular dated 2.1.2004 which takes into account the welfare of the retiring employee and his family on the one hand and the safety of general public on the other. According to this scheme the ward of Drivers and Gangman in the age group of 50 to 57 could be considered for employment by permitting Drivers and Gangman applying for voluntary retirement. Certain other attendant conditions were also stipulated in the scheme. 2. The aforesaid benefit of scheme which was made for the two safety categories of staff (Drivers and Gangman) was extended to other safety categories of staff with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,800/- per month and also reducing the qualifying service from the earlier 33 years to 20 years. The nomenclature of the scheme was also modified as Liberalized Active Retirement Scheme for Guaranteed Employment for Safety Staff ( in s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member 1. The applicant has been communicated adverse remarks for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 against which he has filed this O.A. Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-9 and Annexure A-22 are all correspondence relating to the adverse remarks as aforesaid and as such, they have all been impugned. Vide Annexure A-20 the applicant could get certain information through RTI as to the grading of the Reporting Officer and Reviewing Officer for all the periods from 2005-06 and after 2009-10. Insofar as period prior to 2007-08 the reports carried `Good'/'Very Good' grading and similarly 2009-10 he was reported `Very Good'. 2. The applicant participated in certain demonstration on account of which he was proceeded and was imposed with certain penalties also. 3. The applicant has sought the following reliefs :- 1. Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-1, set aside and expunge the adverse grading 'Average' given therein. 2. Call for the records leading to the i...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
DR. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member The applicant, originally belonging to the Armed Forces Headquarters Civil Services (AFHQ for short) Clerical Grade since 12-11-1982, came on deputation to the Central Administrative Tribunal (C.A.T. for short) on 15-11-1985 in the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal and later on got himself transferred to the Ernakulam Bench. Along with him came on deputation from the very same organization, certain other individuals including one Shri Sripatha Rao (Bangalore Bench) and another Ms. Krishnaveni (Madras Bench). Of these, the former was senior to the applicant, while the latter i.e. Ms. Krishnaveni, junior in the said AFHQ Clerical Grade. In January, 1989, the AFHQ intimated the applicant about his turn for being considered for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. The C.A.T. was asked to relieve the applicant to take up the promotion in the AFHQ. In case he was not desirous of reversion to the parent cadre within the specified date (31- 01-1989), h...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
DR. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member. 1. The case of the applicants in this OA is as under:- The applicants were regularly selected by the Railway Recruitment Board, Chennai as Junior Draftsmen (Present designation Junior Engineer/Designs) in the Electrical Wing of the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai, Ministry of Railways, in 1987 and 1990 respectively. In response to notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission, they applied for the post of Sub Engineer in the Kerala State Electricity Board through proper channel (Annexure A2). They passed the written test and attended the interview. Upon selection as Sub Engineers in KSEB, the applicants submitted technical resignation from the Integral Coach Factory, Chennai. The resignation was accepted and they were relieved on 14.12.1999 and 18.07.2001 respectively (Annexures A3 and A4). The applicants thereafter joined KSEB on 20.12.1999 and 19.07.2001 respectively and ever since they have been continuing as such. According to the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicant, while working as Parcel Clerk at Trivandrum, had allegedly committed a mis-conduct on 26.10.2005, whereby he was charge sheeted vide memorandum dated 16.01.2007 (on which date he was serving as Senior Commercial Clerk, Kochuveli) and the charge is as under:- "(1) He demanded Rs.30/- for his personal gains while effecting delivery of parcels under Parcel Way Bill Nos.244024, 244025 and 244026 all dated 25.10.2005 ex ERS to TVC and collected the amount through a contract labourer. (2) In addition to the subject amount of Rs.30/-, he had collected Rs.740/- for effecting delivery of the parcels through the said contract labourer for his personal gains. " 2. The charges having been stoutly denied by the applicant, the regular Inquiry was conducted and in the Inquiry, after the closure of the prosecution witnesses, the Inquiry Officer (I.O for short) posed certain questions to the applicant as the applicant did not enter into the witness b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicant is a retired officer of the Indian Postal Service Group A, having retired as Senior Superintendent, RMS 'TV' Division, Trivandrum with effect from 29.2.2008. When he was serving as Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum North Division during February, 2006 to August, 2007, under his administrative control came the Trivandrum GPO among other post offices. In June, 2007 on conducting half yearly accounts verification of the said GPO, the Deputy Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum North Division detected a shortage of Rs.14,00,000/- in the cash balance of the GPO. The cash and other instruments such as Postal Orders etc. were in the joint custody of the Treasurer No.1 and the Deputy Postmaster No.2 (delegated duty of the Senior Postmaster) as per the PandT Financial Hand Book Vol.II. As the applicant was holding administrative control of the said post office, he was issued with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (C...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicant, who had been appointed as Administrative Officer in the Centre for development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) in pursuance of Annexure A-1 communication dated 3rd June, 2011 has, during the period of probation, been issued with an order of termination from service vide impugned order dated 7th May, 2012. Thus the challenge is against the said order of termination. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Administrative Officer in C-DAC. The offer of appointment provided, inter-alia, of the period of probation as one year which, at the discretion of the appointing authority could be either curtailed or extended and further that during the probation period, the services of the applicant are liable to be terminated without notice or without assigning any reason thereof, if his performance is found to be not satisfactory or if the Centre is satisfied that he was ineligible for recruitment to the service in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. As the legal issue involved in all the above five cases is one and the same, all these O.As are considered together and a common order passed. For purpose of reference, OA No. 310 of 2012 has been taken as the pilot case. 2. Briefly stated, all the applicants in the aforesaid O.As were initially functioning as GDS in the Civil Post Offices since 2001 or in and around that period. In November, 2006 Annexure A-2 notification was issued by the respondents which relates to deputation of Group-D (including postman) employees of the Post Offices to APS. The notification, at a conspicuous place, contained the following:- "Male Gr.D officials below the age of 40 may prefer their applications in the form enclosed which should be accompanied by a Medical Certificate in the enclosed proforma. In the event of not getting sufficient volunteers from the Gr.D category it is suggested that volunteers may also be called for from among male GDS who satisfy the age c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicant, belonging to SC community, has been functioning as a part time sweeper cum scavenger in the respondents' organization (at Thottada SO) since February, 2008. His claim is that the benefit available to the part-time casual labourer vide D.G's order dated 06-06-1988 in respect of preferential treatment to part-time casual labourers for regular appointment as GDS should be made available to him. In support of his claim, the applicant has annexed Annexure A-7 an order dated 2nd August, 2010 in OA No. 167 of 2010, wherein such a preference had been directed to be given in an identical case. When the respondents have notified a vacancy for the post of GDS Mail Deliverer, Kakkat Post Office, reserved for SC candidate, he had applied for the same in proper format and in addition represented for giving him preference. As there has been no response and as, according to the applicant, his reliable information is that there is no scope for his be...
Tag this Judgment!