Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. The applicant has filed this OA assailing the order Ann.A1 thereby the applicant was recalled for appearing in typing test vide letter dated 19th September, 2005.2. The case of the applicant is that the applicant has passed Senior Secondary Examination with First Division and B.A. Examination from Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer and his name was registered with the Employment Exchange, Baran. In the month of April, 2004, the Principal, Navodaya Vidyalaya, Atru called names from the Employment Exchange, Baran for appointment on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC). Name of the applicant was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The applicant was called by the school vide communication dated 12.5.2004 for typing test and for verification of various testimonials. In response to the same, the applicant appeared for typing test on 23rd May, 2004. The applicant had been waiting for the result, but the applicant again received a communication whereby the applicant was...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. The applicants have challenged the seniority list issued by the West Central Railway, Jabalpur on 30th December, 2004. The representations made by the applicants against the said seniority list was turned down by the respondents.2. The case of the applicants is that they were appointed as Junior Cashier from where they were promoted to the post of Senior Cashier on different dates in between the period from 18th September, 1990 to 29th September, 1996. All of them were promoted on different dates on ad-hoc basis as Senior Cashier and thereafter they were regularized w.e.f.11th August, 1997. It is further stated that promotion to the post of Senior Cashier were made in the Western Railway on ad-hoc basis in accordance with the rules and as per the seniority subject to passing of the suitability test. However, the suitability tests were not held for years together and the incumbents continued to work on ad-hoc basis until their regularization on passing of the suitability test.It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. The applicant has filed this OA assailing the order dated 01.08.2005 (Annexure A/1) whereby without objectively considering the reply to the charge sheet and other representations submitted by the applicant, an inquiry has been ordered to be conducted against the applicant and an Inquiry Officer has been appointed to conduct a disciplinary inquiry which relates to incident pertaining to year 1993.2. Facts, as alleged by the applicant, are that a charge was issued to him on 30.04.2004 i.e. on the date of his retirement regarding some incident pertaining to the year 1993. The said impugned order has been made without objectively considering the reply submitted by the applicant to the charge sheet. The applicant submitted that he was appointed as an IAS officer in the year 1975 and retired on 30.06.2004.At the relevant time, i.e. w.e.f. 31.07.1993 to 05.02.1994, he was posted as Commissioner, Jaipur Development Authority. He was also an Ex.-officio Chairman of a Multi Membered Land an...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
i) Order dated 30.4.2002, 3.4.2003 and 18.11.2003 where by the applicant has been placed under suspension and his appeal and review has been rejected under rules of 1969 may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii) respondents may be directed to reinstate the applicant from the date of 90 days period after the suspension has been completed. The respondents may further be directed to grant all consequential benefits and give posting the applicant equivalent to the post where he was posted at the time of suspension.2. Facts, in brief, as alleged by the applicant are that the applicant is a member of All India Service and was allotted Rajasthan Cadre in the year 1981. It is further submitted that in the year 1994 while posted as Special Secretary, Animal Husbandry, Government of Rajasthan, he unearthed a scandal of Rs. 497.12 lakhs in purchase of equipments, instruments and other goods in the Department. With the result the Department has cancelled purchase of medicine from various commercia...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
i) That the impugned amendment recruitment rules dated 23.3.2005 may be set aside. ii) That respondents may be directed to consider the case of applicant for promotion to the post of ITO in accordance with the recruitment rules notified on 21.12.2004. i) The respondents may further be directed to convene the DPC for promotion to the post of ITO in accordance with the unamended rules of 2004. ii) Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal thinks just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the applicant. iii) Cost of the original application be awarded in favour of humble applicant.2. Facts, in brief, are that all the applicants are working as Inspectors under the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax i.e. respondent No. 3. The respondents carried out certain amendments in the recruitment rules for the post of Income Tax Officer. The applicants are aggrieved of that amendment as they allege that the earlier rules were framed in the ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. The applicant assailed the order dated 04.11.2003 (Annexure A/1), vide which his seniority has been modified by the office of DRM, Ajmer.2. The facts, in brief, are that the applicant was working as Head TTE w.e.f. 01.03.1993 at Kota Division. The applicant made a representation seeking his transfer on mutual basis with one Shri Bhagwan Das Rajaq.The mutual transfer was allowed and subsequently, the applicant was transferred at Ajmer vide order dated 01.05.1998 and he joined his duties on 17.5.1998 and Shri B.D. Rajaq joined as Head TTE at Kota Divison. After the mutual transfer, vide order dated 06.03.2003 (Annexure A/10), seniority list was issued wherein the name of the applicant was shown as Head TTE at sl. No. 68. Subsequently, the respondents realized that the person, Shri B.D. Rajaq, with whom the mutual transfer of the applicant was effected was an ad hoc employee.Therefore, they have issued a show cause notice dated 11.09.2003 to the applicant to explain as to why his seni...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. Applicant, Smt. Munni Burman, Matron Grade-II, Railway Hospital, Gangapur City, has filed this OA under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following relief: i) To quash the impugned order of removal from service dated 19.10.2004 (Ann.A/2), issued by the Chief Medical Superintendent, Kota. ii) To quash the appellate authority's decision dated 2.4.2005 (Ann.A/1).2. Shri R.N. Mathur, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri S.S.Hasan, learned Counsel for the respondents, appeared in this case and argued the matter. i) Applicant, Smt. Munni Burman, was working as Matron Grade-II, Railway Hospital, Gangapur City. On 19.5.2001, she was on duty in the Emergency Ward from 15.00 to 23.00 hrs. On that day, during her duty hours, something happened and she was charged as under: a) She refused to measure blood pressure of a patient when asked to do so by Dr.N.D.Sahu. b) In this context, Dr. Sahu wanted to give her a letter, but she refused to accept or ack...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. Through this OA the applicants claim rectification of the order dated 3rd April, 1995 (Ann.A12) vide which the applicants have been allotted 1988 as year of allotment to Indian Forest Service.2. Facts, as alleged by the applicants in brief, are that both the applicants were initially working under the State Forest Service and they were promoted to Indian Forest Service (IFS) and were given the year of allotment as 1988. The applicants has prayed that they should be treated in IFS against the vacancies of the year 1987. It is stated that seniority list of Rajasthan Forest Service (RFS) officers working as Assistant Conservator of Forest was published on 15th March, 1990 in which name of the applicants appeared at Sl.No. 36 and 35. The applicants also state that their record is totally neat and clean and there is no clog in their service through out their career.The applicants further state that Rule 8 of the IFS (Recruitment) Rules, 1966 provide that the Central Government on the re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. The applicant has filed this OA thereby seeking quashing of order dated 31.5.2004 (Annexure A/1) vide which the applicant's service period from 2.2.1998 to 9.6.2004 has been declared as 'Not spent on duty'.2. The facts in brief as alleged by the applicant are that he was earlier removed from service in pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. The applicant challenged the dismissal order before this Tribunal by filing OA No. 296/2002. The said OA was allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 17.02.2004, observing that the applicant shall be entitled to all consequential benefits. However, the Tribunal also clarified that in case the respondents wants to pass fresh order against the applicant, they may proceed in accordance with law. Thereafter, the applicant was allowed to join duty but as regards the intervening period is concerned, the impugned order was passed declaring that the period w.e.f. 2.2.1998 to 9.6.2004 shall be treated as 'Not spent on duty'. It...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jaipur
1. The applicant has filed this OA to assail the impugned order dated 5.11.2004 vide which his suspension has been extended for a further period of 180 days from the date of issuance of impugned order.2. The facts as alleged by the applicant in brief are that he is working and holding the post of Junior Telecom Officer under the respondents. The applicant while working as Junior Telecom Officer was placed under suspension with headquarter at Sikar vide order dated 21.08.2002 issued by Respondent No. 4 invoking provisions of Rule 10 (1) of CCs (CCA) Rules 1965 on the ground of disciplinary proceedings being contemplated against him. It is further stated that Respondent No. 4, who has issued the order of suspension, was not competent to issue the same, nor he is competent to extend the same. A representation against this order has been made by the applicant. It is further stated that it is Respondent No. 1 who is competent authority of the applicant. Therefore, Respondent No. 4 is not c...
Tag this Judgment!