Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ10CAT
1. As the issues involved in all these three Original Applications are the same, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. The brief details leading of the filing of these three Original Applications are given below.3. Applicants ten in number and one in number in the above two Original Applications are Nursing Orderlies and Lab. Technicians working in various hospitals and health centres of Union Territory of Lakshadweep.According to them they were appointed as such after training in accordance with the training rules. In support of which they produced Annexure A-2 training rules for Male and Female Nursing Orderlies, 1974. They further claimed that A-2 would indicate that Nursing Orderlies were none other than Nursing Assistants. By A-3 order dated 11.2.87 Nursing Allowance to Nursing Personnel of all categories was granted, by A-4 and A-5 orders both dated 11.2.87 the rate of Uniform Allowances and Washing Allowances in respect of Nursing Personnel ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ340CAT
1. Applicant who was working as permanent auditor in the Defence Account Department. Thiruvananthapuram has filed this Original Application aggrieved by A-1 order dated 21.10.95 issued by the Local Audit Officer, seeking the following reliefs: (ii) An order directing the respondents to pay the provident fund amount from 1980 onwards with statutory interest till the entire claim is satisfied. (iii) Such other reliefs which are just and equitable and the facts of the case may require, and 2. Applicant was working as permanent auditor in the Defence Accounts Department in the office of the Local Audit Office (Army), Thiruvananthapuram. On 7.5.80 he was involved in a criminal case under Section 302 IPC. He was suspended from service on 7.5.80. Subsequently he was dismissed from service on 3.1.81 (Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that this date should be read as 3.12.81). While the applicant was in prison, he sent A-2 letter to GDA West Block, R.K.Puram, New Delhi to disburse hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ225CAT
1. The first four applicants working as Superinten- dent of Customs and the fifth applicant working as Preventive Officer have filed this Original Application aggrieved by A-1 Administrative Circular No. 24/99 dated 21.10.99 issued by the first respondent stating the decision to recover the excess paid overtime allowances from the individuals concerned. They sough the following reliefs: (ii) To direct not to recover any part of the overtime allowance paid from January 1986 to July, 1996. (iii) To grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the Tribunal may deem fit to grant.2. According to the applicants all operative staff of the department, to which category the applicants belong, were eligible for overtime allowance as per the orders in force and till July, 1996 first respondent was allowing night weightage at the rate of 20 minutes for every one hour between 20 hrs and 6 hrs and overtime allowance was being paid accordingly. From August, 1996 onwards they were paid overtime ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicants in this case, Shri V.A. Kumaran, Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Trivandrum North Division Trivandrum and Shri M.J. Chacko, Assistant Director of Postal Services, Office of Chief PMG, Kerala Circle, Trivandrum, are aggrieved against sub para (iv) of Paragraph-III of Office Memorandum No. 22011/5/9l-Estt.(D) dated 27.3.1997 of the Department of Personnel and Training, [A-9(2)] and consequent promotion order dated 23.7.1998 (A-10) whereby the juniors of the applicants are stated to be promoted overlooking the applicants in the matter of promotion from Group 'B' Postal Services to the Junior Time Scale (JTS for short) of Postal Services Group 'A'. The applicants are further aggrieved by Office Memoranda rejecting their representations against non-promotion to Group 'A' JTS. A-17 is the O.M. dated 16.10.98 whereby the 2nd applicant's representation is rejected.2. We have gone through the pleadings and the relevant material on record. We have also heard Shri O.V. R...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ491CAT
1. The short question that calls for answer in this case is, when an officer placed under suspension during the investigation or trial in a criminal case is reinstated on acquittal by the competent criminal Court, without holding any disciplinary proceeding, can his pay and allowances for the period during suspension be denied to him. The applicant while working as a Telephone Inspector, Mattancherry, was placed under suspension under Rule 10(1) of the CCS (CCA) Rules with effect from 1.2.89 as a criminal case against him was under investigation. After investigation, the applicant was tried by the CBI Court, Ernakulam for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13( I )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Trial Court convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each under Sections 7 and 13( 1 )(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. The applicant carried the matter before...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is the third time the applicant, a member of Scheduled Caste, is approaching the Tribunal with the grievance of denial of promotion to him to the post of Supervisor (Communication with effect from the year 1989 against a reserved vacancy. The applicant joined service as Operator (Telecommunication; in the Central Excise Collectorate, Trichy on 30.5.77. After ten years of service, he was transferred on request to Cochin Collectorate on 7.9.87. In the year 1989, five vacancies were filled up in the grade of Supervisor (Communication, out of which one fell to Roaster Point reserved for Scheduled Caste. Though the applicant satisfied all the eligibility criteria for promotion, and belonged to SC, he was not considered for promotion. He went on making representations. He was promoted only in the year 1994. The request made in his representation dated 13.10.93 was turned down by order dated 24.7.95 (A-4) on the ground that the clarification issued by the Ministry vide F. No. A14019/...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant, Shri Rajesh Ravindran, aggrieved by the respondents' failure to consider his claim for allotment to the Kerala cadre of the Indian Forest Service (IFS for short), seeks a declaration to the effect that the non-consideration of applicant's claim for allotment to Kerala cadre of the IFS is illegal and prays for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's allotment to Assam-Meghalaya cadre of the IFS and to consider him for allotment to Kerala cadre.Alternatively, the applicant prays for a direction to the first respondent to consider A-3 representation dated 1.11.96 and to pass a speaking order within a specific time frame. The pleadings contained in the O.A,. the reply statement and the accompanying submissions have been further augmented by the respective Counsel.2. The applicant's case can be summarised thus: By A-1 order dated 29.3.96, the applicant, a 1995 Batch probationer of the IFS was allotted to Assam-Meghalaya joint cadre. A-3 representation...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant in this case is aggrieved by A-6 and A-I4 orders.Accordingly, he seeks this Tribunal's intervention for setting aside A-6 and A-14 orders and issue a direction to the respondents to absorb the applicant as Welder/ Rivetter in the existing vacancy as mentioneds in A-11 and A-13 or other vacancies in Trivandrum Division or any other Division with retrospective effect.2. The applicant entered service in Southern Railway as Casual Welder under the Bridge Inspector, Kollam on 26.3.80. He was given the benefit of pay revision as per rules in pursuance of the IVth Pay Commission's recommendations. By A-8 declaration dated 6.11.89, the applicant affirmed his intention of continuing as skilled casual labourer till he got empanelled for absorption against 25% quota and expressing his unwillingness to be absorbed as Khalasi/Gangman. He was prepared to face the risk of retrenchment in the event of closure of the project work before that. By A-1 order dated 20.11.90, issued by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2004)(1)SLJ93CAT
1. As the issues involved in both the above Original Applications are identical both the Original Applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. O.A. No. 1742/98 was filed by 14 applicants working as Language Teachers (Arabic) in various schools under the Department of Education, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. On being selected and appointed as Arabic Teachers they were granted the scale of Rs. 1200-2040 originally. They approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 839/95 alleging discriminatory and violation of Recruitment Rules in force. By A-8z order dated 21.3.1997 this Tribunal allowed the O.A. declaring that the applicants were entitled to the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 from the date of their appointment. Respondents challenged A-8 before the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in O.P. No. 10082/97 which was dismissed as withdrawn by judgment dated 20.10.1997. The applicants filed O.P.15005/98 before the Hon'ble High Court praying for modification of A-8...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ342CAT
1. In this batch of 5 O.As., the applicants who are Scientists under the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR for short) are aggrieved by the fact that they have not been given placement/promotion as Scientist (Senior Scale)/Scientist Selection Grade (or Senior Scientist) with effect from the respective due dates of eligibility.Inspite of minor variations in factual details, the central issue in all these O.As., is the respondent alleged failure to grant the due promotions by correctly computing their eligible past service as Scientist in different grades in pursuance of this Tribunal's order in O.A. 991/93 dated 23.12.94 and in the light of the Universities Grants Commission (UGC for short) package for purposes of placement/promotion.Therefore, for the sake of convenience, these O.As. are disposed of by a common order.2. The main reliefs sought for by the applicants in these O.As. are therefore by way of an order setting aside the impugned A-3 orders dated 4.9.96 in so far a...
Tag this Judgment!