Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. Applicant, Harish Chandra, has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for as under:- "8 ,(i) That by an appropriate order or direction the impugned order dated 22.08.95 (Annex. A/1) issued by the Plant Protection Advisor to the Government of India may be quashed. (ii) That by an appropriate order, the respondents may kindly be directed to implement this Hon'ble Tribunal's direction dated 14.7.93 forthwith, and all consequential benefits thereafter." 2. The applicant had earlier filed an OA bearing No. 217/86 before this Tribunal praying for as under :- "(i) That by an appropriate order it be declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to be promoted on the post of Assistant Director (Rodent Control) or in the alternative it may be declared that petitioner shall deem to be promoted in the Senior Group 'A' Scale Rs. 1100-1600 w.e.f. the date person junior to the petitioner i.e. respondent No. 4 has been afforded promotion in the sa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. Applicant, Manohar Lal, has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for a direction to the respondents to apply the decision given in the case of Krishan Chander v. Union of India and Ors. to the case of applicant also and further to declare that after demerger the Surveyor Assistant Grade-I he is entitled to get seniority from the date of promotion to the post of Superintendent B/R Grade-I and accordingly, the respondents be directed to grant seniority to the applicant as Surveyor Assistant Grade-I from 1966 with all consequential benefits, and the applicant be considered for promotion for the post of Assistant Surveyor of Works and such higher post in accordance with the assignment of seniority to the applicant in the cadre of Surveyor Assistant Grade-I. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to re-compute the vacancies in the cadre of Surveyor Assistant Grade-I and Assistant Surveyor of Works and to convene rev...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. Applicants, Bansi Singh, Laxmi Narain Sharma, Bajrang Lal, Guman Singh and Tulsi Das, have filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying as under : "That the impugned order dated 29.12.95 (Annex. A/1) may be declared illegal and the same be quashed. The respondents may be directed to prepare/finalise seniority list in respect of Goods Guard, Pass Guard and Mail Guard in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malik's case, Sabharwal's case and Virpal Singh's case and thereafter take necessary follow up action regarding issuance of reversion/promotion orders and thereafter only the selection for the post of Passenger Guard may be initiated. The applicant may also be allowed all consequential benefits." 2. Applicants' case is that in terms of various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in regard to reservation. The respondents should have revised the seniority list of Goods Guards and if that had been done by them, the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. Applicants, Mahendra Kumar, Shyam Lal, Kuldeep Singh, Anil Bohra, Ram Prasad, Babu Lal, Dinesh Kumar and Sudhir Chand, have filed O.A.No. 206/95 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for quashing the orders at Annexures A/1 to A/8, Annexures A/30 to A/36 and similar orders with regard to applicant No. 8 and further for issuing a direction to the respondents not to recover any part of the salary paid to them in grade Rs. 950-1500 and for not altering their pay scale Rs. 950-1500 and to declare that the applicants are entitled to receive salary in pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 from the day of their initial appointment.2. Applicant, Trilok Ram, in O.A. No. 324/95 has prayed for quashing the order dated 3.8.1995 (Annexure A/1) and the orders passed by the respondent No. 2 referred to in Annexure A/1 and for issuing a direction to the respondents to pay the applicant the salary in the pay scale of Rs. 950-1500 from the date of his appointment.3. Since the issue...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. In both the applications filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, facts and circumstances, as also relief sought is the same and, therefore, these are being disposed of by this single order.2. Applicants, Shynm Lal Sharma and Prabhu Dayal, have prayed for setting aside the impugned orders dated 15.2.1996 (Annx. A/1), dated 16.8.1996 (Annx. A/2) and dated 13.9.1996 (Annx. A/3) and for issuing a direction to the respondents for refunding the amounts to the applicants of recoveries affected from them in implementation of the impugned orders.3. Applicants' case is that while functioning as Train Driver Grade 'C', the applicants participated in the strike sponsored by Loco Running Staff Association in February, 1981. The applicants were dismissed from service w.e.f. 9.2.1981 by invoking the provisions of Rule 14 (ii) of the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, 1968. That the case of dismissal of the applicants has also been vehemently contested before the Administrati...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. Petitioners named above have filed this Contempt Petition under Section 17 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, the Act), praying for initiating proceedings of Contempt of Court against the respondents for non-compliance of the order of Ihe Tribunal passed in Original Applications Nos. 460/91, 1 15/ 94 and 116/94 on 9.5.96.2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully perused the records.3. It is pertinent to note at the very outset that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, vide No.PB/6/2/98-R dated 10.9.98 has circulated a copy of the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated 17.8.1998 in Writ Petition No. 34841 /1997 and Contempt Case No. 1054/1998 (Government of Andhra Pradesh v. K. Anantha Reddy and 7 Ors.) wherein a Division Bench of the Hon'bie High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad has held as follows:-- "(1) that in view of the decision rendered by the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Jodhpur
1. Applicant, Jawahar Lal Jain, has filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for issuing a direction to the respondents to treat the past services of the applicant from 17.6.1964 for all purposes including grant of Pensions, Gratuity and allotment of residential accommodation etc.2. Applicant's case is that he was initially appointed as Steno-Typist in the Soil Conservation Research Demonstration and Training Centre at Kota, (for short, SCRC), under Indian Council of Agriculture Research, (for short ICAR), of Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Government of India w.e.f. 17.6.1964. The applicant was substantively appointed to the post of Steno-Typist w.e.f. 17.6.1966. That in response to an advertisement by Heavy Water Projects, Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India, Bombay, the applicant applied for the post of Stenographer (Senior) through proper channel, in the year 1970.Consequent upon his selection the applicant was relie...
Tag this Judgment!