Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The background facts, the legal issues involved and the reliefs prayed for in these three Original Applications are identical and hence they are being disposed of by a common order. The issues involved relate to stepping up of the pay of the seniors to the level of pay of the juniors.2. The legal issues that fall for determination in these applications are as hereunder- (i) whether a senior can claim stepping up of pay with reference to the pay of his juniors, when they work in two different units. (ii) what are the circumstances under which stepping up can be allowed and what is the basis on which stepping up can be claimed Before we examine the issues involved, it would be apposite to mention, in brief, the background facts of these three applications only to appreciate the legal issues.These two applications have been filed by officials working under the respondent- Railways in the Jabalpur Division, Central Railway. All the applicants in these two OAs are working on the post of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The prayer in this OA is to direct the respondents to give seniority to the applicant in the post of UDC w.e.f. 1.4.1980 and to interpolate his name accordingly. This relief is prayed for. in the background of the following facts.2. The applicant was appointed as LDC w.e.f. 11.8.1964 in the detachment Vehicle Subdepot, Secunderabad. He was promoted as UDC and posted to Jabalpur in November 1980. He assumed charge as UDC at Jabalpur from 14.4.1981. He admits in Para 4-4 of the OA that financial benefits had been extended to him as UDC only from 14.4.1981. After the transfer of Certain employees from DGI Organisation to DGOF organisation, the applicant reported in GCF, Jabalpur w.e.f.21.10.1984. His prayer in his representation dated 3.9.1986 was to count his seniority in the grade of UDC from 1.4.1980, i.e. the date of panel seniority and not from 14.4.1981 i.e. the date of assumption of charge. His grievance vide representation dated 5.12.1980 is that as per the revised seniority r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The applicant is the son of late Shri Chironjilal, who died on 12.5.1998 after having retired on medical grounds on 25.1.1988. The applicant's case for appointment, under compassionate ground, was duly processed by the General Manager-Respondent No. 3. After having considered the case favourably, applicant's name was kept in the waiting list for consideration for appointment, but in turn.Unfortunately, the turn never came. By passage of time the respondents themselves come up with a new policy on 2.3.1990 indicating that only those who have reached upto the age of 57 years could come up for consideration of appointment of their sons/daughters/wards on compassionate grounds. The father of the applicant in this case died in 1988. Apparently, the applicant's case was rejected by applying executive instructions with retrospective effect.2. In the counter, the respondents have raised objections to the applicant's claim for compassionate appointment mainly on two grounds.Firstly, by an o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. In this application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant Sri Abdul Latif who was a peon in the office of the Income Tax Officer, Raigarh has challenged the legality and propriety of the order passed by the third respondent on 30.12.87 (A8) dismissing him from service in purported exercise of powers vested on him under CCS CCA Rules, 1965 dispensing with the enquiry as he was satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry into his misconduct of assaulting Sri K.K. Dhand, Tax Assistant Ward Circle II, Income Tax Office, Raipur along with his accomplice on 16.12.1987 in the office premises of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range II, Raipur and that by doing so he had exhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant "violating Clause iii of Sub-clause (i) of Rule 3 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964", as also the order of the second respondent, the appellate authority refusing to entertain his appeal (A1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The applicant while working as Assistant Foreman in the Project office in the Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur, came to know that a proposal made by the Deputy General Manager on 9.11.89 for his transfer to Filling Section No. 3 in the same factory. Alleging that the proposal was malafide and that if the applicant who has neither the training nor the expertise to work in the explosive filling section is posted there, that would be dangerous not only to his life but of others also, the applicant on 15.11.1989 filed O. A. 751/89 before the Bench of the Tribunal seeking to quash the proposal and a direction not to transfer him out of Project office as also some other reliefs. On that date the applicant was not on duty but was allegedly sick and had applied for medical leave with effect from that date. When the application came up for bearing on 17.12.89 as none appeared for the respondent, the application was admitted. The applicant had prayed for an interim order prohibiting the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. Shri M.S. Murthy, a senior member of the Madhya Pradesh cadre of the Indian Administrative Service has filed this application challenging the legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated 24th April, 1999 of the second respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh placing him under suspension in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 (Annexure-A1).2. The historical background in which the impugned order was issued as alleged by the applicant is thus: During the period between September, 1997 and October, 1998 the applicant was holding the charge of Commissioner cum Director, State Lotteries and Small Savings. The State of Madhya Pradesh had by an Act known as Madhya Pradesh Lottery Pratibhandh Adhinyam banning all types of Lotteries in the State. The validity of the Act was challenged before the Supreme Court and the Court in State of Haryana v. Suman Enterprises, 1994 (4) SCC 217 inter alia directed that repres...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The applicant is aggrieved that he was superseded for promotion to the selection grade by the impugned order of 13th July, 1978 by which persons junior to him were promoted and also by his subsequent supersession to the post of Conservator of Forests by impugned order dated 11.11.1982. The main ground taken by the applicant is that the respondents have taken into account the adverse entries in his Confidential Reports pertaining to the period ending 31.3.1981 and 31.3.1982 respectively. He contends that these remarks were communicated to him only in April/May, 1984 after undue delay and the Departmental Promotion Committee had taken into account adverse remarks. He also alleges that the procedure adopted by the D.P.C. of taking into account the un-communicated remarks in the ACR and grading him accordingly and finding him unsuitable for promotion was not legal.It is stated by the applicant that at the time of consideration of his case, there were departmental proceedings pending ag...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The common order of reference is only under the signature of Vice Chairman (J), though the cases were heard by a Division Bench consisting of Vice Chairman (J) and Member (A). The order of reference says, "Since there is a difference of opinion on the said point, (i.e., the point of jurisdiction), the matter is referred to the Hon'ble Chairman for nominating the third Member." However, in the main order written by the learned Vice Chairman, the question of jurisdiction was not examined. In this context the order of reference mentions that the cases "were heard assuming that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the matter and pass orders." Without agreeing or disagreeing with the Vice-Chairman learned Administrative Member observed: "The dispute in the batch of cases before us in essence relates to granting the applicants retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act/ reinstatement in service/granting temporary status to them in terms of the scheme framed by the dep...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jabalpur
1. The applicant is a State Civil Service Officer. He was holding the post of Special Assistant to the Revenue Minister of State of Madhya Pradesh in the year 1984. He was given ex-officio status of Undersecretary in the Revenue Department of Madhya Pradesh. One of the duties of the applicant was to communicate the oral order of the Ministers to the department for suitable action. The applicant then being in the State Civil sent a note to the then Special Secretary- Shri U.K. Samal. The said note was approved and orders were given orally for taking action in the matter. The controversy arose later on when the allotment of land to Jabalpur Motor Part Dealers Association situated at Madhotal, Jabalpur. Though the Principal Secretary (Revenue) had clearly stated that the application for grant of exemption is rejected, the applicant and the then Special Secretary Shri U.K. Samal are alleged to have manipulated the note sheets stating that after the application for exemption is rejected by...
Tag this Judgment!