Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Member (J): 1. Applicant who was appointed as Audit Officer in the Coconut Development Board on deputation basis while he was working in the Rubber Board, Kottayam, has filed this Original Application challenging Annexure A-13 order of his repatriation to his parent department. He contends that he has to be treated as "permanently absorbed" in the Coconut Development Board in view of the order of approval granted by the Ministry of Agriculture for such absorption, and prays for an appropriate declaration in this regard. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed. The applicant had applied for the post of Audit Officer in the Coconut Development Board on deputation basis in response to Annexure A1 advertisement. On his selection and appointment to the above post, he joined the Coconut Development Board on October 15, 2009. The deputation was for a period of 3 years from the date of his appointment. 3. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a request for extensi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. Applicant is a retired Railway employee who superannuated on May 31, 2012 while working as Goods Guard (Traffic). According to the applicant, he had married Smt.K.Sathyabhama, the elder sister of his first wife late Sreedevi on December 31, 2011 after her death on August 21, 2010. The applicant had thereafter submitted Annexure A-3 application before Respondent No.2 with a request to change the legal nominee in his service records. The death certificate of his first wife Sreedevi and the marriage certificate evidencing his marriage with Sathyabhama were also produced along with the application. 2. In response to the above application, the Respondents have issued Annexure A-4 communication seeking several clarifications as regards the status of the children in his first marriage to Sreedevi. Marriage Certificate in respect of his marriage to Sathyabhama, present status of the first husband of Sathyabhama, death certificate of the first husband of Sathya...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. Applicant who was appointed as Audit Officer in the Coconut Development Board on deputation basis while he was working in the Rubber Board, Kottayam, has filed this Original Application challenging Annexure A-13 order of his repatriation to his parent department. He contends that he has to be treated as "permanently absorbed" in the Coconut Development Board in view of the order of approval granted by the Ministry of Agriculture for such absorption, and prays for an appropriate declaration in this regard. 2. The relevant facts may be briefly noticed. The applicant had applied for the post of Audit Officer in the Coconut Development Board on deputation basis in response to Annexure A1 advertisement. On his selection and appointment to the above post, he joined the Coconut Development Board on October 15, 2009. The deputation was for a period of 3 years from the date of his appointment. 3. It is not in dispute that the applicant had made a request for ex...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member 1. Applicant is the widow of a retired Railway employee who had admittedly faced Disciplinary Proceedings on the charge that he had continued in service beyond his actual date of superannuation by playing fraud on the Administration. To be more specific, the case of the Railway Administration is that going by the actual date of birth of the deceased employee, he ought to have retired from service on September 30, 2001. But he managed to continue in service till May 31, 2009. 2. It is the admitted position that at the conclusion of the Departmental Proceedings the husband of the applicant was compulsorily retired from service with effect from September 30, 2001. Thereafter, the Administration had computed the total dues recoverable from the employee and fixed at 7,87,745/- It is on record that a sum of 3,84,000/- was recovered from the terminal benefits of the employee before his death on January 21,2011. 3. Applicant has filed this Original application whe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. These three Original Applications are being disposed of through this common order since a common issue is involved in them. 2. Applicants are erstwhile Group-D employees (now re-designated as Multi Tasking Staff) working under the Civil Naval Command at Naval Base in Kochi. They have filed these Original Applications challenging the process of direct recruitment initiated by the respondents to fill up 235 vacancies of un-skilled labourers in the Naval Units under the Southern Naval Command. According to the applicants the respondents are bound to absorb them as un-skilled labourers and not to make any direct recruitment from outside, in terms of the provisions contained in the Naval Group CandD Industrial Posts (Tradesman and Labourer) Recruitment Rules, 2000. While seeking to quash the recruitment notice, the applicants pray that the respondents be directed to fill up the above vacancies by absorbing them in accordance with the Rules referred to above...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
A.K. Basheer, Judicial Member. 1. The applicant is stated to be working as Primary School Teacher in Junior Basic School (Central) at Androth under the Administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep. He has filed this Original Application impugning Annexure A-11 order of his suspension from service as well as Annexure A-12 notice directing him to show cause as to why he should not be dismissed from service under Rule 19(1) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 2. It is not in dispute that the applicant now stands convicted and sentenced in two criminal cases for various offences under Section 341, 324, 427 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is seen from the record that the two orders of conviction and sentence were passed in December 2010. The grievance of the applicant is that he has now been placed under suspension more than three years after his conviction in the two criminal cases. According to him Annexure A-11 order is without any...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. The applicant was charge sheeted under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, on 29.02.1996 for various financial irregularities. The enquiring authority held that the charges against him were proved. After following due procedure, the penalty of removal from service was imposed on the applicant on 04.07.1997 by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The O.A. No.678/2006 filed by the applicant against the order of removal from service was disposed of with a direction to the revisional authority to reconsider the decision regarding quantum of punishment after giving personal hearing to the applicant. The said order was challenged by the respondents in Writ Petition (C) No. 4084 of 2009 which was disposed of by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala setting aside the order of this Tribunal, to the extent it makes observations against the punishment imposed, with a view to provide the revisi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
K. George Joseph, Administrative Member: 1. Having common facts and issues, these O.As were heard together and are disposed of by this common order. 2. The applicants got promotion to the post of of Telecom Mechanic in the Department of Telecom in the Central Dearness Allowance (CDA) pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 prior to the formation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL). When the BSNL was formed on 01.10.2000, the CDA pay scale was replaced by Industrial Dearness Allowance (IDA) pay scale adopting point to point pay fixation. This resulted in their juniors, who got promoted as Telecom Mechanic after 01.10.2000, getting higher pay than them. In certain cases, seniors got their pay stepped up through Court intervention. The applicants represented claiming benefit of stepping up of pay at par with their juniors, but to no avail. Aggrieved, they have filed these O.As for the following reliefs: (i) Declare that the applicants are entitled for refixation of their pay based upon the stepping...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
1. Head 2. Applicant assails his transfer to Palghat Division on multiple grounds. 3. Apparently there was a complaint regarding some of the Booking Clerks indulging in ulterior transactions overlooking the priority of passengers waiting in the queue. It was found that they were booking tickets for persons who were not in the queue and vigilance check was conducted on 28.12.2012. Applicant who was the Senior Commercial Clerk was caught red handed during this transaction and at the time of his entrapment he was found with two tatkal tickets which he had booked overlooking the priority of the passengers. He had undeclared cash with him. The Railway cash was short. According to the paragraph 123 of IREM the extent directions are that such people must be transferred out of the Division to enable a more purposive investigation. 4. Two elements exist in service jurisprudence. The protection of a Government servant during the course of his employment and the protection of the governed because...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam
Dr. K.B. Suresh, Judicial Member: 1. Original Application Nos.976/13 and 1197/13 are heard together. Original Application No. 976/13 relates to a transfer, on request, as provided in the declared policy and rules and O.A No. 1197/13 is for a change of home town. Both are filed by the same applicant, the same respondents and are interconnected, so they are taken together. 2. The question which would arise in this case is what is the relevance, validity, effect and impact of a policy if it is to be complied indiscriminatorily, arbitrarily and without any specified parameters of applications. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant had taken the benefit of a declared policy vide Annexure A-11 whereby the respondents had advised all its employees that should they elect to serve in a hard station, then after three years of service at a hard station, they will be expost-facto granted a choice station. That being so, it appears that the applicant had applied for a p...
Tag this Judgment!