Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. Applicant retired from service on March 31, 1998 while working as Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs. According to the applicant, while he was working as Superintendent he was sent on deputation to Sahara International Airport, Mumbai during 1994-1995. Applicant claims that he had "detected and effected" seizure of 30 gold bars (3500 gram) from one passenger namely, Shri.Shabbir Ahmed Ali, while he was on duty at Sahara International Airport on December 19, 1994. The said contraband gold valued at Rs. 16, 31,000/- was confiscated in Annexure A-1 Adjudication Proceedings dated November 13, 1995. The grievance of the applicant is that he has been denied Reward for the seizure of the contraband gold from the passenger referred to above as stipulated in Annexure A-2 Scheme. Para 3.4.1 of the Scheme provides that informants and Government servants will be eligible for Reward upto 20% of the redemption fine and/or penalty imposed and realis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. Upon the death of the wife of the applicant while working as Supporting Staff Grade-I under the 1st respondent on 19.7.2001 the applicant had submitted on 20.8.2001 an application requesting to provide him suitable employment under the compassionate appointment scheme. On the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit his application for appointment was rejected. However, pursuant to the direction issued by this Tribunal the 3rd respondent granted approval for age relaxation to consider him for compassionate appointment. The 1st respondent as per Annexure A8 letter has informed the applicant that there is no sufficient number of posts for compassionate appointment right then but his case would be considered when the required number of posts becomes available in the coming years. The applicant's representation at Annexure A9 dated 19.3.2012 for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme has not so far been responded to. Aggrieved the applicant has filed this Original ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. Applicants are stated to be working as Telecom. Mechanics in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited. 2. The primary grievance of the applicants is that their juniors are drawing more pay than they are being paid. According to the applicants, this anomaly occurred while switching over their pay scale from Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) Scale to Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) Scale consequent to issue of Annexure A-1 Office Order. Applicants have, therefore, filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs: "1. Declare that the applicants are entitled for re- fixation of their pay based upon the stepping up given to Telecom. Mechanics in other division of the BSNL at par with the common junior as if in the case of M.P.Sreedharan with respect to the 1st applicant and as if in the case of Sabu A.K. with respect to other applicants and issue an order directing the respondents to disburse the arrears of salary and other benefits within a time limit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member. 1. The applicant joined duty on 01.08.2008 as casual labourer in the National Sample Survey Office (FOD), Sub Regional Office, Kakkanad, Kochi, at a minimum wage of Rs. 150/- per day. The minimum wage was raised to Rs.180/- by the Government of Kerala vide order dated 28.07.2009, with effect from 01.08.2009 and to Rs.300/- vide order dated 02.05.2011, with effect from 01.04.2011. She had made representations vide Annexures A4 and A5 dated 12.06.2012 for the enhanced minimum wage. All of a sudden she was asked orally not to attend work from 09.07.2012 without any reason. She represented against the denial of employment orally vide letter dated 11.07.2012 at Annexure A-6 to the Deputy Director, National Sample survey Office, Thiruvananthapuram. As her representations were left unanswered, she filed this O.A on 18.07.2012 for the following reliefs : "(i) Call for the records leading to the denial of employment to the applicant; (ii) To declare that...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member: 1. This petition has been filed by the applicant in OA No. 985 of 2012 under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 alleging that the respondent has willfully and deliberately disobeyed the direction issued by this Tribunal in the above Original Application. He, therefore, prays that appropriate action be taken against the respondent and he be punished accordingly. 2. Petitioner is an officer of the Indian Police Service, 1987 batch and is presently holding the rank of Inspector General of Police. He had filed the above Original Application seeking primarily the following reliefs:- "(i) To declare that there is no legal impediment in promoting the applicant to the grade of Additional Director General of Police in view of the incontestable fact that inquiry proceedings are not commenced till date notwithstanding the serving of Annexures A-2, A-4, A-5 and A-6 Articles of charges on the a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. Applicant is presently working as Principal in Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Special Armed Police Camp, Peroorkada in Thiruvananthapuram District. She has filed this Original Application impugning Annexure A1 order dated March 7, 2013 transferring her to Kendriya Vidhyalaya at Pattom in the same District. 2. It is beyond controversy that applicant had come over to Kendriya Vidhyalaya, Pattom from Jabalpur on a request made by her. She joined the school at Pattom on June 4, 2012. It is on record that soon thereafter, in July 2012, she was transferred from Pattom to Peroorkada. She had unsuccessfully challenged the said order before this Tribunal. However, soon thereafter, the said order of transfer was cancelled by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (for short the Sangathan) itself by Annexure A4 order dated August 29, 2012. But within a span of 7 months she was again transferred to Peroorkada by Annexure A1 order which is impugned in this Original Application. 3. The grievance of the applica...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. Applicant was admittedly removed from service on June 1, 2000while he wasworking as Trained Graduate Teacher (Maths) atGovernment High School, Chethalath in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep on a charge of unauthorised absence from duty. The grievance of the applicant is that the respondents have not considered Annexure A2 request made by him for grant of compassionate allowance under Rule 41 of the CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant has got yet another grievance that he has not been granted the dues standing to his credit in the General Provident Fund account as on the date of cessation of his service. He alleges that the dues have been withheld by the respondents without any valid or justifiable reasons. Though Annexure A-4 notice was issued claiming the above dues, the said lawyer notice was also in vain. It is in the above circumstances, the applicant has filed this Original Application. 2. Today, when this case is taken up for consideration,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant is the married daughter of Late T.P. Thankachan who died in harness while he was in service in the Postal Department. Applicant claimed appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme after the death of her father in 2007. It appears that the case of the applicant was placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee. However, it is seen from the Written Statement filed by the respondents that the Committee could not make any recommendation due to the following reasons:- "a. As per the Directorate order No. 37-36/2004-SPB-I, dated 20.01.2010, allocation of marks to various attributes are based on certain verifiable facts. They need to be backed by proof of documents/certificates issued by the competent authority. b. The claims made by the applicants regarding their landed property/house property need to be backed by certificates issued by competent authority. c. Annual income of claimant's family should have been adequately verified by the Divisional heads before se...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. The applicants are retired Programme Executives of All India Radio.Admittedly, they were engaged as Duty Officers after their retirement, and they are continuing even now on such engagement. Applicants apprehend that the respondents are likely to terminate their engagement as Duty Officers. Therefore, they have filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- "1. Direct the respondents 1 and 2 to continue to engage the applicants as Duty Officers as has been done for the last 10 years. 2. Call for the records leading to the issue of Annexure A-6 and set aside Annexure A-6 in as much as direction is given to engage Floor Assistants for duty as Duty Officers in Doordarshan Kendra and All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram. 3. Direct the respondents to pay the entitled remuneration at the rate of Rs.610/- to the applicants, for the work they have discharged as Duty Officers in Doordarshan/All India Radio, Thiruvananthapuram." 2. In the written...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant is presently working as Gramin Dak Sevak in the Department of Posts within the jurisdiction of Vadakara Postal Division. He has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- "(1). To declare that the service of the applicant in the cadre of Postman be reckoned as pensionable service with effect from 17.03.2003 with all consequential benefits at par with his counter parts. (2). To direct the Respondents to admit the Applicant to the General Provident Fund and Pension Scheme prevalent in the year 2003." 2. When this case is taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Department is prepared to grant the benefits which had been granted to the applicants in OA No. 81 of 2012. He prays that some reasonable time may be granted to do so. 3. In OA No. 81 of 2012 this Tribunal had directed thus:- "5. In the light of the fact that the applicants have been appointed only in 2004 whereas the batch mates were given notiona...
Tag this Judgment!