Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. The applicant is an I.P.S. officer of 1963 batch, U.P. Cadre. The applicant was confirmed on 11.11.63, given Senior scale on 12.4.67 and selection grade on 1.1.77. The applicant was promoted as D.I.G. on 24.5.83 and as I.G. on 5.10.89. During all this period, as claimed, the applicant was never superseded.2.The I.P.S. Officers of U.P. Cadre belonging to 1961 hatch were considered for their promotion to Additional Director General (in short A.D.G.) of Police in January, 1992. The applicant was also considered alongwith other officers of his batch. The D.P.C. recommended 5 names including that of the applicant. Three officers senior to the applicant were promoted. A second D.P.C. was held in the same year i.e. 1992 but the applicant was not considered as the applicant's Annual Remarks was not available whereas the two other officers of 1963 batch namely C.K.Malik and S.R. Arun were considered. S.R. Arun is just above the applicant in the list of 1963 batch officers. On 29.1.94, a D.P...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. The applicant to this O.A., has prayed for issue of directions to the respondent nos. 1 to 3 for quashing of the impugned order of the Railway Board no. 727-E/1461E (i)(a) dated 7.9.98 (Annexure-4 to the O.A.) by summoning the original records containing the proceedings of the selection committee and the ACRs of the applicant for eight years from 1990-91 to 1997-98. A further prayer is for issue of directions to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 for reviewing the applicant's claim for promotion to Senior Administrative Grade (hereinafter referred to as SAG) w.e.f. 12.3.98 i.e. the date on which his immediate juniors (respondent Nos. 4 and 5) were promoted, with all consequential benefits of seniority, salary etc. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to place the applicant at Serial No. 8A of the impugned promotion order dated 12.3.98 (Annexure-1), that is below Shri P.C. Gajbhiye and above Sri Deepak Gupta. Lastly, it is prayed that all the unfavourable/adverse entrie...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. By this O.A. the applicant has challenged the order of removal dated 12.7.89.2. As per pleadings contained in the O.A., for unauthorised absence for the period 28.9.84 to 19.1.89, a charge sheet dated 14.2.89 was served on the applicant under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1968).There were two articles of charges; one was for failing to maintain devotion to duty due to unauthorised absence from 28.9.84 to 19.1.89, the second article of charge is for committing misconduct as the applicant failed to maintain devotion to duty during the said period.After enquiry, which was not attended by the applicant, the order of removal from service was passed on 12.7.89 (Annexure A-18 to the O.A.).3. As per applicant, he preferred an appeal on 1.12.90 (copy Annexure A-19 to the O.A.) but the same remained undecided, hence the applicant filed the O.A. on 22.2.91.4. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. The applicants of both the O.As have been transferred by a common order dated 12.3.96 (Annexure-O 1 to the Counter affidavit filed by the respondents). The transfer order was communicated to the applicant Marshal Franki vide letter dated 21.3.96 (Annexure A-7 to the O.A.207/96) and to S.K. Asthana vide letter dated 21.3.96 (Annexure A-9 to the O.A. 219/96). The applicants of both the O.As have challenged the said order by the above O.As.2. As the facts of the two cases and law points raised in both the cases are common, both the cases have been heard together and are being decided by a common order.3. The applicants of both the O. As have been working in A.M.V.Workshop Alambagh. By the order dated 12.3.96, Marshal Franki the applicant of O.A. 207/96 has been transferred to Jagadhari Workshop and S. K, Asthana the applicant of O.A. 219/96 has been transferred to Jodhpur Workshop. Both the applicants have been transferred in the same capacity on administrative grounds alongwith post....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. Unfortunately, the order of reference does not contain the questions to he considered by this Full Bench. We, therefore, formulate the questions as follows : (i) Whether Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, (in short, "CSIR"). or its unit the Central Drug Research Institute, (in short, "CDRI"), is an "industry" within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; or "industrial establishment" under Section 2(c) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 read with Section 2(ii)(f) of the Payment of Wages Act (ii) If so, whether Bye Law No. 12 of the CSIR and its Units could not be enforced against their employees for want of its certification under Section 3 of the Standing Orders Act? (iii) Whether the right to contest an election under the Representation of People's Act could not be taken away or restricted by the Bye Laws of a society having no statutory force? (iv) Whether the CSIR was not a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. The order of reference does not mention the question referred to the Full Bench. We, therefore, formulate the question at; follows : "Whether the Stenographers sponsored by the Employment Exchange and appointed on ad hoc basis by the respondents after written test and interview were entitled to regularisation and seniority from the date of their ad hoc appointments, or from the date of passing the regularisation test held by the Staff Selection Commission?" 2. As the Staff Selection Commission could make no recommendation for filling up certain posts of Stenographers in the office of the 3rd respondent, a requisition was made to the Employment Exchange for sending names of candidates for the said posls. Names were sent by the Employment Exchange and after written test and interview, applicants and others were appointed as Stenographers on ad hoc basis. The appointment letters contained a clause that their services were liable to be terminated after candidates selected by the Staff ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. Though in the order of reference the question to he considered by the Full Bench has not been specifically stated, it appears to he as follows on the basis of paragraph 5 of the order : "Whether the expression 'other proceedings pending' used in Section 29 of the A.T. Act includes execution proceedings?" 2. While holding the post of A.P.W.I. in Northern Railway, the applicant Kedar Nath Srivastava filed Regular Suit No. 35/1971 for restraining the respondents from reverting him to the post of P.W.M.and from depriving him of his benefits of seniority since 1966. The suit was decreed on 12.11.1979 by the Fifth Additional Munsif, Faizabad and the Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1980 filed by the defendants in the suit was dismissed on 6.8.1985 by the Civi I Judge (First), Faizabad. In the meanwhile, i.e., during the pendency of Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1980, the applicant had filed Execution Case No. 10 of 1982 on 20.7.1982 for realisation of a sum of Rs. 12,605-20 Paise on the basis of his decree...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. By the present O. A., the applicant has challenged recovery of damage charges @ Rs. 1765/- per month from his salary. In this case, an interim order was passed on 13.11.96 staying recovery of a sum of Rs. 1765/- per month from the applicant's salary.2. On the date fixed for hearing, the learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused.3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was working as Sweeper against a permanent vacancy in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940 (PRS). The applicant was residing in Railway quarter No. L/56-Z/7 at Fateh All Colony, Charbagh, Lucknow with his father Sri Hazari since February '93. The applicant's father was also working as Sweeper under Station Master (in short S.M.), Northern Railway Station, Lucknow (respondent No. 3). The father of the applicant retired from service on 30.9,93. The applicant, who himself was a Sweeper under S.M., Northern Railway Station, Lucknow, was allowed permission to share the q...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. By the present O.A., the applicant has claimed that the pension admissible to him at Rs. 1265/- per month should be allowed w.e.f.31.7.86 instead of provisional pension of Rs. 1131/- being drawn by him since the date of his superannuation i.e. 31.7.86. He also claimed consequential relief of arrears of pension alongwith interest and revised commuted value of pension alongwith interest.2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused.3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant retired from the Income Tax department on 31.7.86 as Income Tax Officer (in short I.T.O). He joined the Income Tax department as Upper Division Clerk (in short UDC) on 11.2.57. Prior to that he was working as Enquiry Inspector in the Food and Civil Supplies department, Government of U.P.under over all control of the Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies, Government of U.P., Lucknow. He worked in that department from 14.9.48 to 31.12,53 after which he was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. By the present O.A., the applicant, who was Junior Engineer (in short I.E.) in the Telecom department has challenged the orders dated 30.6.87 and 28.10.88 passed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 3 imposing the penalty of censure on the applicant and directing that recovery of a sum of Rs. 19,140/- be made.2. On the date fixed for hearing, nobody attended on behalf of the applicant and on behalf of the respondents Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi, Advocate was present, who was heard. Since nobody attended on behalf of the applicant, the case is being decided on the basis of the submissions made by the respondents and pleadings available on record.It is also seen in this case that Counter was filed on behalf of the respondents on 31.8.90, but no rejoinder therein has been filed till date inspite of umpteen number of opportunities allowed to the applicant between 31.8.90 and 30.6.99.3. The applicant was appointed as I.E. in March, 79 and was posted at Lucknow under Superintending Engineer, Telecom, Ci...
Tag this Judgment!