Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The applicants joined service as Inspectors of Central Excise/Preventive Officers of Customs. They were promoted as Superintendents of Central Excise/Superintendents of Customs (Group-B) and later as Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Group- A) in the year 2002. They were entitled for promotion as Deputy Commissioner during the year 2006 on completion of four years of service as Assistant Commissioner. As per Annexure A6 order dated 19.11.2010 they were granted promotion with effect from the date on which they have completed four years of service. The 11th applicant was promoted as Deputy Commissioner with effect from 1.10.2006 and all other applicants with effect from 10.12.2006. In the orders of promotion as Deputy Commissioner it is specifically stated that promotion is notional and on adhoc basis. Accordingly, as per Annexure A30 the 5th applicant was entitled for fixation benefits from 10.12.2006 and arrears from the d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. This OA is, in one way, an execution application, praying for execution of the order passed by the Tribunal in OA no.825 of 2006. 2. The following order was passed in OA No.825 of 2006 filed by the applicant, vide order dated 6th September, 2007:- "In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit in the contention of the respondents. I, therefore, allow this OA. As the only objection of the respondents in not absorbing the applicant was that he was over aged and the same was not found to be a relevant objection any more, the respondents are directed to absorb the applicant as Group 'D' employee at par with his juniors with all consequential benefits emanated there from except arrears of pay and allowances. The respondents shall necessarily issue orders absorbing him as a Group 'D' employee within two months from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the applicant will be entitled to full pay and allowances attach...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant is aggrieved by the rejection of her request for appointment on compassionate grounds by relaxing the normal Rules of Recruitment. 2. The mother of the applicant, late Smt.K.K Preetha, while working as Telephone Operator with a service of 4 years 7 months and 26 days expired on 20.12.1992, leaving behind her unemployed husband and the applicant, who was only 3 = years old. The applicant belongs to scheduled caste community. She avers that she and her father are residing along with her father's brothers, in a small house situated in the kudikidappu land of 10 cents. At the time of the demise of her mother, the family had a liability of Rs.16,000/-, which was later cleared by applicant's father by taking a personal loan. The family received only Rs.8679/- by way of DCRG and encashment of leave. Balance in GPF, as per the nomination, was received by the sister of her mother. The amount of family pension she is receiving now is not at all sufficient for the survival of her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The applicants who joined as Clerk Grade-I in the Accounts Department of Southern Railway were promoted as Accounts Assistant in the scale of Rs. 1400-2600/- in the year 1987. They were posted as an Officiating Stock Verifier in the same scale of pay for a short period of less than one month. They were promoted as Travelling Inspector of Accounts in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- in the year 1990. Having got two promotions they were not eligible for any financial upgradation under the ACP scheme of 1999 but with the introduction of MACP Scheme with effect from 1.9.2008 they were eligible for the 3rd financial upgradation but the same was denied on the ground that their posting as Stock Verifier was a promotion. Their representations for the 3rd financial upgradation were of no avail. Aggrieved they have filed this Original Application for the following reliefs:- "a) Declare that Annexure A-3 order is unjust, illegal, opposed to Annexure A-1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. As the issues raised are the same in these O.As, they are disposed of by this common order. O.A. No. 870/2012 is taken up for consideration as the representative case. 2. The applicants who are Telecom Technical Assistants (TTA), after completing the Phase-I of the prescribed training programme are holding the higher post of Junior Telecom Officers (JTO) in the pay scale of Rs. 9850-14000 on local officiating basis for 179 days successively after breaks. When their pay was sought to be reduced by applying F.R. 35, they approached Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala held in W.P.(C) No.28349/2005 and connected cases that the temporary nature of the posts or the non-regularization of the posts etc. are matters irrelevant as far as fixation of pay is concerned and that they were eligible for fixation of pay in the pay scale of the JTO under F.R. 22(I)(a)(1). However, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Hig...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The Union Public Service Commission (USPC) had invited applications as per advertisement at Annexure A1 in the employment news dated 9-15 July, 2011 for direct recruitment by selection to 3 posts of Senior Fisheries Scientist (SFS). The applicant a Senior Scientific Assistant in the Fishery Survey of India (FSI) was shortlisted and interviewed but not selected. By filing this OA he challenges the selection of respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and seeks a direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh recruitment process for appointment to the post of SFS against the vacancies notified in terms of Annexure A1 in accordance with law and without exposing the secrecy which is required to be maintained in the matter of intimation and appointment of the selection committee members and to consider him for appointment to the post. 2. The applicant contended that respondents Nos. 5 and 6 do not have the requisite essential qualification of five years experienc...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The applicant retired from the service of the Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on 31.12.2006 as Superintendent in the cadre of Insurance Inspector/ Manager Grade-II/Superintendent. The scale of pay of the cadre was Rs. 5500-9000 upto 20.04.2004. Subsequently, the pay scale was revised to Rs.6500-10500 notionally with effect from 21.04.2004 and with monetary benefits from 01.10.2007 vide Annexure A-1 letter dated 24.10.2007. Vide Annexure A-4 order dated 23.04.2008, the pay of the applicant was revised to Rs. 8100/- in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500. Pursuant to O.M dated 13.11.2009 (Annexure A-11) of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, vide order dated 03.03.2009 (Annexure A-10) ESIC decided to grant the Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/- in pay band PB-2 to the post of Insurance Inspector/Manager Grade-II/Superintendent notionally from 01.01.2006 and with monetary benefits from 01.10.2007. But vide Annexure A-6 dated 01.07.200...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicants in this OA are the serving employees of the Ernakulam Bench of the C.A.T. They hold the post of Assistant/UDC. (The UDCs have their financial upgradation under the ACP scheme and were enjoying the pay scale of Rs 5,500 - 9000). Their scale of pay prior to 01-01-2006 was Rs 5,500- 9,000/-. Their grievance in this OA is that the pay fixation carried out in the wake of upgradation of the pay scale of Assistants from Rs 5,500 - 9000 to Rs 7,450 - 11500, followed by the replacement pay scale in the PB-2 - Rs 9,300 - 34,800 plus grade pay of Rs 4,600/- has not been correctly done. Hence they have filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:- "1. Call for the records relating to the issuance of Annexure A2 and quash the same to the extent it shows the applicants' pay as on the date of option in the pre-revised scale as Rs.5,500/- as against the requirement of Rs.7,450/- and also to the extent it shows the applicants' revised pay in the Pay ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicants (two in number) had joined as Plater (Skilled) in the Respondents' organization respectively in Mid 1998 and 1999. Earlier, an original application, bearing No. OA No. 498 of 2006 was filed by the first applicant challenging certain act on the part of the respondents in clubbing some of the trades to be brought under a common trade for the purpose of promotion vide order dated 04-08-2006 at Annexure A-1. This was relating to the rationalization of the Trade Structure in Naval Dockyards/NSRYs. The OA was disposed of by the Tribunal through a common order dated 10-03-2008 ( vide Annexure A-2) whereby the respondents were, inter alia, directed to design a fresh seniority list of all the employees in the Highly Skilled Category after merging H.S. Grade-II and H.S. Grade-I w.e.f. 01-01-1996 and also for issue of separate orders working out the ratio on the basis of the sanctioned and authorized strength of all trades and further the respo...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, when the applicant approached the Tribunal in OA No. 8 of 2010, the said OA having been dismissed vide Annexure A-5 order dated 14-01-2011, the applicant took up the case before the High Court in OP (CAT) No. 3283 of 2011 and the High Court vide judgment dated 12-10-2011 (Annexure A-6) has held as under:- "2. After hearing both sides and after going through the orders of the CAT, we notice that the CAT was under a wrong impression that General Manager's approval is required under para 524(iii) of the Indian Railway Medical manual (IRMM) for petitioner to avail leave beyond five days. Petitioner's case is that he only submitted an application before the leave sanctioning authority for benefit under para 524(iii). In other words, according to him, he did not request for treatment of the excess period beyond five days as on duty. We find force in this contention because under para 524(iii) the General manager, is the authority to extend ...
Tag this Judgment!