Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B.S. Rajan, Judicial Member 1. The applicant challenges his transfer from Thiruvananthapuram to Nagarcoil, vide Annexure A-1 and has also challenged the rejection of his representation against the aforesaid transfer order vide Annexure A-2. 2. To narrate the brief facts of the case, the applicant earlier submitted a request for transfer to Thiruvananthapuram Division on the ground of medical treatment of his wife, who was suffering from cancer. She died in 2006 leaving behind her two children aged nine and four years. The applicant entered into a second marriage and has two children through this wedlock. His wife is employed as an Upper Division Clerk in the transport department of the State of Kerala. The applicant met with an accident whereby he had his knee damaged with a torn ligament. It was at that juncture that the applicant was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Nagarcoil vide Annexure A-1. This was challenged by him through OA No. 956 of 2011. The Tribunal disposed o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member 1. The applicant has secured 82.664 marks out of 100 in the test for direct recruitment of Postal Assistant for the vacancies of 2009-10. She claims that she did not figure in the select list only because the respondents 04 to 16 were granted 5 marks for typing test in violation of para 5.5 of Annexure A-1 prospectus. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this O.A. for the following reliefs: (i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A3 select list of Postal Assistants issued by the 3rd respondent vide memo No. BB/Rectt/2010 dated 17.11.2010 and to set aside the same to the extent it includes names of respondents 4 to 16 in preference to the name of the applicant; (ii)To declare that the applicant is entitled to be recruited and appointed as Postal Assistant in Post Offices under the 3rd respondent in preference to respondents 4 to 16; (iii)To direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the applicant as Postal Assistant under the 3rd respondent in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant retired as a Sub Division Engineer in the BSNL on 31.5.2011. Certain prohibitory orders were passed by the Second Additional Sub Court, Thriruvananthapuram in O.S.No.439/2011 with respect to disbursement of leave encashment dues to the applicant and also under the Group Insurance Scheme. Annexure A-4 refers. Further, the Principal Sub Court has also passed an order of attachment in O.S.No.734/2010. The Principal Sub Court has however, lifted the attachment as against gratuity benefits vide Annexure A-7. Another prohibitory order in respect of DCRG due to the applicant has been issued by Special Deputy Tahsildar(Revenue Recovery), Thiruvananthapuram vide Annexure A-6. The applicant has given his consent for withholding of the DCRG payable to him by a separate communication. 2. There appears no prohibitory orders or attachment or attachment in respect of commutation of pension due to the applicant. However, as per the Annexure A-1 impugned order, issued by the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant was initially engaged as a casual labourer w.e.f. 08-02-1979 and finally retrenched on 15th of December 1980 with a casual service of not less than 440 days. In pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DREU vs G.M. Southern Railways, when the respondents were preparing a live register of casual labourers, the applicant submitted his application for inclusion of his name in the live register and his name was accordingly registered at serial No. 848. When the applicant came to know that persons with less number of days of services of casual labourer than him were absorbed on regular basis, he was made to believe that as per the Railway Board orders, the casual labourers who crossed the age of 42 years are not entitled to be considered for absorption. However, persons who crossed the age of 42 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the Railway Board order which prescribed the age limit for casual labourers to be considered for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is the case of compassionate appointment. The applicant's father, who was working as a Post-man, died in a road accident on 1st August 2005. The mother of the applicant applied for compassionate appointment for her elder son, vide Annexure A-6 dated 28th of December 2005. Vide Annexure A-11 communication dated 20-06-2006, her request was turned down on the ground that the family is not in indigent circumstances. According to the applicant, after the aforesaid rejection order was communicated, he and his mother visited the respondents many times and were given the assurance that the case would be reconsidered (paragraph 8 of the OA). The applicant thereafter on 1 January 2008 renewed the request of his mother for the grant of compassionate appointment to him. Annexures A-13 and 13 A refers. This request was again renewed in 2010 vide Annexure A-14 series. The applicant had also approached certain Central Ministers in this regard. 2. As there has been no positive response, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant retired as a Sub Division Engineer in the BSNL on 31.5.2011. Certain prohibitory orders were passed by the Second Additional Sub Court, Thriruvananthapuram in O.S.No.439/2011 with respect to disbursement of leave encashment dues to the applicant and also under the Group Insurance Scheme. Annexure A-4 refers. Further, the Principal Sub Court has also passed an order of attachment in O.S.No.734/2010. The Principal Sub Court has however, lifted the attachment as against gratuity benefits vide Annexure A-7. Another prohibitory order in respect of DCRG due to the applicant has been issued by Special Deputy Tahsildar(Revenue Recovery), Thiruvananthapuram vide Annexure A-6. The applicant has given his consent for withholding of the DCRG payable to him by a separate communication. 2. There appears no prohibitory orders or attachment or attachment in respect of commutation of pension due to the applicant. However, as per the Annexure A-1 impugned order, issued by the first resp...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. This is the case of compassionate appointment. The applicant's father, who was working as a Post-man, died in a road accident on 1st August 2005. The mother of the applicant applied for compassionate appointment for her elder son, vide Annexure A-6 dated 28th of December 2005. Vide Annexure A-11 communication dated 20-06-2006, her request was turned down on the ground that the family is not in indigent circumstances. According to the applicant, after the aforesaid rejection order was communicated, he and his mother visited the respondents many times and were given the assurance that the case would be reconsidered (paragraph 8 of the OA). The applicant thereafter on 1 January 2008 renewed the request of his mother for the grant of compassionate appointment to him. Annexures A-13 and 13 A refers. This request was again renewed in 2010 vide Annexure A-14 series. The applicant had also approached certain Central Ministers in this regard. 2. As there has been no positive response, the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. The applicant was initially engaged as a casual labourer w.e.f. 08-02-1979 and finally retrenched on 15th of December 1980 with a casual service of not less than 440 days. In pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DREU vs G.M. Southern Railways, when the respondents were preparing a live register of casual labourers, the applicant submitted his application for inclusion of his name in the live register and his name was accordingly registered at serial No. 848. When the applicant came to know that persons with less number of days of services of casual labourer than him were absorbed on regular basis, he was made to believe that as per the Railway Board orders, the casual labourers who crossed the age of 42 years are not entitled to be considered for absorption. However, persons who crossed the age of 42 approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal was pleased to set aside the Railway Board order which prescribed the age limit for casual labourers to be considered for ab...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. In compliance with the order of this Tribunal dated 30.07.2008 in OA No. 299/2007, the respondents had dereserved 7 SC/ST vacancies in the cadre of Income Tax Inspectors and filled those posts by general candidates in the year 2009-10. They further promoted the applicants, 3 in number, who are general candidates to 3 vacancies out of 4 vacancies of the Income Tax Inspectors which arose in 2010-11, the 4th vacancy being a reserved vacancy, vide orders dated 18.06.201, 16.07.2010 and 01.11.2010. On realising that they were promoted against reserved vacancies without prior de-reservation, the respondents after giving an opportunity of being heard reverted the applicants to the post of Stenographers vide order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure A-13). Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this O.A. for the following reliefs: (i) Call for the records leading to Annexures A-13 to A-16; (ii) To declare that Annexures A-13 to A-16 are unsustainable in the eyes of law; (iii) Issue appropriate orders ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Non grant of ACP and MACP is the grievance of the applicant herein. The applicant initially was functioning as District Savings Officer in the National Savings Organization since 01-09-1975 and w.e.f. 01-08-1996 he was promoted as Deputy Regional Director in the same organization. When the Assured progression Scheme (ACP for short) was introduced effective from 09-08-1999, his case was considered for grant of 2nd ACP from 01-09-1999 (on completion of 24 years of service), but as the applicant was found unfit, he was not granted the same. Annexure A-4 letter dated 28-08-2002/20-09-2002 refers. The applicant did make a representation dated 28-11-2002 wherein he had mentioned that he was not communicated any adverse remarks and even then, he was not found fit for the benefit under ACP Scheme. There was said to be no response to the same. Meanwhile, the applicant was rendered surplus in the said National Savings Organization and was re-deployed in the Customs and Central Excise Department,...
Tag this Judgment!