Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member: 1. The applicant was appointed as a Clerk Typist in the Indian Embassy at Kuwait vide Annexure A-1 order dated 15-05-2003. The appointment was temporary and the order indicted that the same would not confer any title to permanent employment. The initial probation was for six months and the same having been successfully completed, probation was declared vide Annexure A-2 order dated11-04- 2004. 2. On 23-12-2010, the Head of Chancery, Kuwait issued a memorandum which, vide Annexure A-4, reads as under:- "No.Kuw/Adm/586/6/2003 December 23, 2010 Memorandum It has been brought to the notice of the undersigned that Mrs.Latha Prabha Kumar, Clerk, was found overcharging the applicants who applied for various consular services at the Embassy counter. She has, in this connection, submitted two letters dated 14th December 2010 and 17th December 2010, giving her explanations. On the basis of investigations carried out the Embassy have reasons to believe that the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Mrs. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member: 1. The applicant is aggrieved by the non-consideration of his request to grant him compassionate allowance under Rule 65 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. 2. Brief facts of the case as stated by the applicant are that he was regularly appointed as Carriage and Wagon Khalasi in the year 1976 and thereafter as Khalasi Helper on 9.7.1978. While working as Wheel Lubricate Attendant (WLA) under the Carriage and Wagon Superintendent, Trivandrum Central, a penalty advice dated 9.11.1989 was served on him by the 2nd respondent. He was dismissed from service w.e.f 15.11.1989 as he convicted to four years rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam in Crime No.132/1981 of Hill Palace Police Station, Thripunithura. This punishment was reduced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. It is further stated that on suffering the rigorous imprisonment he was exhausted mentally, physically, financially and so...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
HON'BLE DrK.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The applicant is functioning as GDS MD II at Thonoorkara Post Office under Respondent No. 2. Provisions exists for participation in the departmental examination for appointment/promotion to the post of Postman for which an examination was held on 29-08-2010 and the applicant participated in the said examination. The applicant was not declared selected, though declared as passed. Annexure A-1 is the result of the examination. And, when he requisitioned the copy of the answer sheets under RTI Act, and the same was made available to him, vide Annexure A-3 and the applicant could observe that the answers though valued as correct were awarded only 37 marks. Despite the fact that the applicant had pointed out this error, there has been no salutary effect to the said representation and hence, this OA seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To call for the records relating to Annexure A-1 to A-4 and to declare that the applicant is entitled to be awarded atle...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
The applicant on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01-07-1993 was issued with a pension payment order fixing his monthly pension at Rs 1031/- vide Annexure A-2. In the wake of the V C.P.C. Recommendations, the pension was revised to Rs 3124/-, vide Annexure A-3. This was further revised, after the acceptance of the VI Central Pay Commission Recommendation to Rs 7061/- effective from 01-01-2006 vide Annexure A-4. However, vide Annexure A-1, the respondents had reduced the extent of pension to Rs.6239/- and the Respondent No. 5 Bank had informed the applicant as to the reduced rate of pension and the proposed recovery of excess money paid to him. Applicant penned a representation and the details of amount received have been authenticated by the Bank, vide Annexure A-5. As Annexure A-1 has been issued without prior notice and as the same is even otherwise incorrect, this OA has been preferred praying for the following reliefs:- (i) Call for the records leading to the issue of A1 and quash the s...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member The applicant is an orthopaedically handicapped person with 45%disability. In compliance of the direction in O.A.No. 1587/1991, he was promoted from the post of Upper Division Clerk to the post of Junior Telecom Officer (JTO) against reservation for the physically handicapped. Later, he was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) a Group-B post, on 29.09.2004.No promotions were effected to Group-A and Group-B cadres from April, 1997 to March, 2010 under the quota for the physically handicapped. According to the applicant, he became fully qualified for promotion to the post of Divisional Engineer, a Group-A post, by 2007. He claims that he should be promoted to the post of Divisional Engineer after revising his promotion to the post of SDE granting the benefit of reservation provided for the physically handicapped as per Annexure A-10 dated 04.07.1997. He has filed this O.A. for the following reliefs: (i) To declare that the applican...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The first applicant in this Original Application is Kendriya Vidyalaya Non-teaching Staff Association representing the erstwhile Head Clerks and the 2nd applicant is an Assistant who is an aggrieved person. The applicants are aggrieved by the proposed action of the respondents in revising the seniority settled for the last ten years. Annexures A21 and A22 are under challenge. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as under:- The ministerial staff of regional and headquarters office of Kendriya Vidhyalaya Sangathan (in short KVS) and the ministerial staff of various KVS Schools constituted distinct and different cadres. The cadre structure as it existed prior to 18.7.2001 was as follows:-Cadre:Scale of pay:Lower Division ClerksRs.3050-4590/-Upper Division Clerk/Accounts ClerkRs.4000-6000/-Audit Assistant/AssistantRs.5000-8000/5500-9000/-Supdt. (Accounts)/Supdt. (Admn)Rs.5500-9000/-In the various KVS Schools, the cadre strucutre prior to 18.7.20...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Ms. K. Noorjehan, Administrative Member: 1. As the facts in these three Original Applications are identical and the legal issue raised is the same, these Original Applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, Original Application No.977/12 is taken as the pilot case. O.A 977/12 2. The applicant is aggrieved by her transfer from Ernakulam to Munnar. The applicant joined the respondents' department as Junior Telecom Officer (JTO for short) on 16.03.2003 at Malappuram and was transferred to Ernakulam in February 2007. While so, R-3 issued a probable list of JTOs who are likely to be transferred to high- ranges, where her name figured at serial No.28 (Annexure A-2). To her utter shock, her name was reflected in the Annexure A-1 transfer order. When only 20 JTOs were transferred vide Annexure A-1, Annexure A-2 list contained 34 names. The applicant averred that her turn for transfer came only because the officials at serial Nos...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The applicant was charge sheeted on 23.7.2010 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 while working as RD Counter Assistant, Kottayam HO for his failure to verify specimen signatures resulting in fraudulent payment of Rs. 4,500/- to Smt. M.K. Leelamony, MPKBY agent on 11.11.2005. In the inquiry he admitted the charge unconditionally. The inquiry officer held the charge as proved vide his report dated 7.9.2010. As he retired on 31.7.2010 as Postal Assistant from Kottayam Head Office, the Rule 14 inquiry became Rule 9 inquiry as per CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Due to the delay in finalizing the inquiry he approached this Tribunal in OA No. 129 of 2011. It was disposed of on 18.3.2011 with a direction to complete the proceedings in three months. The disciplinary authority dropped the charge against the applicant on 15.6.2011. The Director of Accounts (Postal) objected to it stating that the disciplinary authority has no power to drop the charge un...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. As directed in OA No. 784 of 2010 dated 20.9.2010 the Commissioner of Income Tax, Thiruvananthapuram considered the representation of the applicant, an Income Tax Inspector, against the adverse remarks in his ACR for the year 2006-07. Based on the clarification given by the reporting officer, the Commissioner of Income Tax decided that the entries in the ACR of the applicant would continue as advisory in nature (Annexure A4). The supplementary DPC which met on 22.2.2011 graded the applicant as fit for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer (ITO) as at Annexure A6. However, the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Kochi sought reconsideration of the recommendation of the DPC vide his letter dated 25.2.2011 at Annexure A7. The review supplementary DPC which met on 4th and 7th March, 2011 graded him as unfit for promotion to the post of ITO. The applicant was superseded and his juniors were promoted as ITO. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant, a Group-D employee of SRO, Railway Mail Service 'CT" Division, Kannur, was charge sheeted as per Annexure A-1 dated 02.12.2010 under Rule 16 of the CCS (CCA) rules, 1965 for violation of Rule 3 (I) (ii) and (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The charges against him were : (i) the speed post articles could not be despatched in time on 30.09.2010 due to negligent attitude of the applicant who opened the bags very slowly that too after repeated requests; and (ii) he was in the habit of raising his voice and shouting at other officials causing disturbance in the office. In his representation dated 18.12.2010, he stated that he had not shown any negligent attitude towards his duty and that he was not in the habit of raising his voice and shouting at officials and that he discharged his duties with utmost devotion on 30.09.2010 as usual. Holding that the applicant admitted his lapse, punishment of withholding of one increment for 2 years without cumulative effect was impos...
Tag this Judgment!