Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ283CAT
1. Shri K.C. Vyas, R.G. Arora and O.S. Sisodia have preferred this joint Original Application under Section 19 of A T Act, 1985 and have prayed for the following reliefs: (a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may be directed to allow the same relief as have been extended to identical circumstances persons in view of the judgment dated 19.09.2002 in O.A. No. 257/2001, Shri K.P. Bissa and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. and judgment dated 09 July, 1993 in O.A. No. 3/89 Dilip Kumar and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. and judgment dated 21. Oct. 1994 in O.A. No. 838/89 Asha Vadhvani v. UOI and Ors. and the applicants also be regularised from the date of their initial entry into service with all consequential benefits. (b) Any other relief which is found just and proper, may be passed in favour of - the applicants in the interest of justice.2. We have heard elaborate arguments advanced at the bar by all the learned Counsel representing the contesting parties and also perused the pleadings a...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)(3)SLJ85CAT
1. Shri M.A. Qureshi has assailed the order dated 18.10.2006 and consequential relieving order dated 23.10.2006 (Annexure A/1) and has prayed for setting aside of the same with a further direction to make payment of the salary for the month of July 2006, etc.2. Skipping up the superfluities, the indubitable facts as borne out from the pleadings of both the parties, are that the applicant was initially appointed in the KVS on 17.09.1984 and is presently working as PGT (History) in K.V. No 1 (Army), Jodhpur. He was transferred from Jodhpur to K.V. Mehsana in December 2000 on the ground of displacement in public interest. He joined at Mehsana on 06.01.2001. He was transferred from Mehsana to K.V. (AFS) Naliya (hard station) in public interest vide order dated 17.06.2002. He was again transferred vide order dated 29.09.2003 from Naliya to K.V. No. 1 (AFS) Agra (outside region) on the ground of closure of Arts Stream at Naliya. He was further subjected to transfer from Agra to K.V. Mathura...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2007)(2)SLJ13CAT
1. Smt. Tara Devi has questioned the validity of Orders dated 18.7.2005,23.9.2005 and 5.10.2005, Annexures-A/1, A/2 and A/3 respectively. She has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the same with a mandate to respondents to absorb (sic appoint) on the post of GDS BPM Ghatiyawali with all consequential benefits, amongst other reliefs.2. We have heard elaborate arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel at the bar and have anxiously considered the pleadings as well records on this case. The material facts necessitating filing of this case are that the applicant possesses the educational qualification of eighth standard. She came to be appointed to the post of EDBPM, Seva in the year 1977. The P.O. Seva was upgraded to EDSPM Seva. However, the applicant continued to work against the said post, till she was relieved to join on the post of GDS SPM Boheda w.e.f. 4.3.2002. She was put on waiting list vide order-dated 19.9.2003 due to abolition of EDSPM post at Boheda. After obtaining her...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(1)SLJ209CAT
1. Shri Anil Kumar Jain has assailed the order dated 30.05.2003 (Annex.A/1), order dated 02.07.2004 (Annex. A/2) passed by the respondent No.2 and the memorandum of charges dated 14.07.99 and has prayed for declaring them as illegal as well as for quashing them with a further direction to the respondents to restore the withholding increments with all consequential benefits.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and have carefully perused the records and pleadings of this case. The brief facts of this case are that the applicant while working on the post of Inspector of Central Excise at Bhilwara in the year 1997, was issued with a charge sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity Rules), vide memo dated 14.07.99. The same contained three articles of charges.He denied the allegations and submitted that the respondent No. 3 was not the Competent Authority to issue the memorandum of charges to him sin...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(3)SLJ358CAT
1. Shri Amit Tripathi, has filed this O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein the following reliefs have been sought: (i) that the complete selection proceedings (sic processure) held in pursuance of notification dated 25.04.2004 published in "Dainik Bhaskar" a daily news paper for the post of Accountant may be declared illegal and same may be quashed. (ii) that selection/appointment of respondent No. 4 may also be declared illegal and the same may be quashed. Further a fair selection may be ordered to be conducted. (iii) that alternatively the record of selection proceeding (sic processure) may be called for and if applicant may be directed to be appointed if found suitable with all consequential benefits.2. We have heard the elaborate arguments advanced on behalf of the contesting parties and considered the submissions, pleadings and the record of this case. Certain records relating to the selection/appointment in question have been made available by...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(92)SLJ159CAT
1. Shri Shankar Lal Meena has invoked the jurisdiction of this Bench of the Tribunal and sought for the following reliefs: (a) By an appropriate order writ or direction, impugned orders Nos. 3-E/Dy CE/Const/II/JU/GO/SL dated 05 Mar. 2004 (Annex.A/1) passed by respondent No. 3 and impugned Order No. E/DAR/308/1/SVN/SLM dated 19 Aug. 2004 passed by respondent No. 2 conveyed vide Order dated 26 Aug. 2004 (Annex. A/2) wherein a recovery of Rs. 1,92,924 is awarded. Monthly recovery of Rs. 3000 p.m. From the pay of applicant may be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside as if they were never issued against the applicant. (b) By an appropriate order, writ or direction, respondents may be directed to refund the recovered amount to the applicant along with the interest @ of 12% p.m. (c) By an appropriate order, writ or directions, respondents may alternatively be directed to remove the sleepers 60 kgs along with the fittings, 150 in numbers, and hand over the same to the applicant. (d) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(3)SLJ264CAT
1. O.A. No. 235/2004 has been filed by Mr. R.B. Saxena against three respondents - The Union of India, represented through the General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur, the Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Bikaner and the Divisional Electrical Engineer, North Western Railway, Bikaner. Through para 3 of the O.A. two orders dated 22.01.2003 passed by Mr. L.C. Majumdar, Divisional Railway Manager and Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement, and the other dated 21.07.2004 passed by Mr. R.M. Agarwal, General Manager, the first respondent rejecting revision have been challenged. The O.A. has been filed on 27.08.2004, its reply under the signature of Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, North Western Railway, Bikaner on 07.02.2005, a rejoinder by the applicant on 18.03.2005 and a reply to the rejoinder on 10.05.2005. (i) The applicant was allotted Railway Quarter No. 206/A on 30.04.1988 by Dy. CME Workshop, Bikaner. (ii) An action under D...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(91)SLJ278CAT
1. Smt. Usha Kapoor has invoked the jurisdiction of this Bench of the Tribunal and filed this Original Application for questioning the validity of order dated 09.07.2004 (Annexure-A/2) whereby her claim for family pension and pensionary benefits has been turned down. She has, inter alia, prayed for quashing of the same in addition to claiming the release of pension, gratuity and other admissible dues of late Shri Tilak Raj Kapoor in favour of the applicant in accordance to the terms of agreement duly executed on affidavit on 18.09.2003 between the applicant and respondent No. 5, so as to meet the dire need of source of livelihood to the bereaved family, amongst other reliefs.2. The case was listed for admission and with the consent of all the learned Counsel for contesting parties it was taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission. I have, accordingly, heard the elaborate arguments advanced on behalf of all the contesting parties and also perused the pleadings and records of...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(2)SLJ281CAT
1. Shri Dhala Ram Choudhary has, inter alia, assailed the validity of order dated 06.10.2004, (Annexure.A/1) and also has prayed for declaring the same as void and non est, in addition to restraining the respondents from taking any further steps in furtherance thereto, amongst other reliefs.2. The case was listed for admission. The learned Counsel for both the parties prayed for final disposal of the case at the stage of admission since a very short controversy was involved in the matter. We have, accordingly, heard the arguments advanced at the bar by both the learned Counsel for the parties and have also given our anxious thought and consideration to the pleadings and records of this case.3. The factual matrix of the case falls within a very narrow compass.The relevant and admitted material facts of this case are that the applicant was imposed with a penalty of reduction by two stages in the same time scale of pay of Rs. 5000-8000 from Rs. 7250 to 6950 with cumulative effect vide pe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
Reported in : (2006)(1)SLJ14CAT
1. Shri Krishan Kanhaiya and Ors., Vijay Srivastava and Ors. and Salim Malik and Ors., have filed their respective O.A. Nos. 265/2004, 238/2004 and 264/2004, under Section 19 of A.T. Act, 1985 on identical set of facts and grounds for seeking similar reliefs. The common question of law is involved in all these cases hence they are being decided through a single order.2. We have heard the elaborate arguments advanced by Mr. S.N. Trivedi and Mr. N. Trivedi representating applicants in all these O.As., Mr.J.P. Joshi Sr. Railway Counsel along with Mr. Manoj Bhandari Railway Panel Lawyer representing official respondents and Mr. G.K. Vyas representing interveners in O.A. No. 238/2004, and have given our anxious thought to the pleadings and records of these cases. The official respondents have also made certain records available.3. For the purpose of adjudication of these cases, we are taking notice of the facts narrated in O.A. No. 265/2004. The applicants have undergone the apprenticeship...
Tag this Judgment!