Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. The applicant B.P. Pandey who was Assistant Station Master, originally filed this O.A. for staying the disciplinary proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order dated 29.9.94 as contained in Annexure A-1 to the O.A. Subsequently, a relief for quashing the disciplinary proceedings in pursuance of the order dated 29.9.94 and for quashing the charge-sheet was substituted. When the O.A. was filed, following the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Kusheshwar Dubey v. Bharat Coaking Coal Limited and Ors. (Judgment Today (1988) 4 S.C.C. 319), further departmental proceedings was stayed. An application for vacation of Interim order was moved by the respondents but the same remained pending. The learned Counsel for the parties however, agreed that the O.A. may be heard and disposed of on merit.2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at great length.The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was Assistant Station Master at Gosainganj. A raid was conducte...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. This O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed with the following reliefs: (i) This Hon, Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the order dated 10.4.1999 passed by the opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure No. 1. (ii) This Hon. Tribunal may be further pleased to direct the respondents not to give affect to the order dated 10.4.1999 passed by the opposite party No. 2 contained in Annexure-1 and prevent them to post any person as Manager (Operations). (iii) This Hon. Tribunal may be pleased to grant such other relief which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) This Hon. Tribunal be pleased to allow this application with costs and special compensation.2. The impugned order Annexure-1 dated 10.4.99 was passed by opposite party No. 2, Executive Director (Personnel) Food Corporation of India (in Short F.C.I.) regarding posting of Manager (Operation) in Regional Office, Lucknow purely on temporary basis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. The applicant Nos. 1 to 4 & 6 have claimed appointment on the post of Lift Operators and arrears of salary from the date when the Tribunal gave directions for appointments in O.A. No. 188/91. The applicant Nos.5 and 7 have prayed that they be retained on muster roll employees at the minimum of the pay-scale admissible to the post of Lift Operator pending consideration of their claim for regulansation in accordance with the law.2. The brief facts, as contained in the O.A, is that the applicants were initially engaged is Lift Operators in G.S.I, on daily wages basis in the year 1987 and worked on consolidated remuneration at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month upto 1990. Subsequently the applicants worked on daily wages basis w.e.f. 1.2.1990. The services of the applicants were dispensed with vide notice dated 21.5.1991. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the applicants filed O.A. No. 188/91. which was finally disposed of, by a Division Bench of this Tribunal on 2.2.93.Howeve...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. By this O. A., the applicant has prayed for quashing of the order dated 29.8.90 (Annexure-1) by which services of the applicant as Casual labour in the departmental canteen was directed to be not counted for as service and consequently the regularisation of the services of the applicant's vide order dated 29.12.88 was cancelled.2. The short point involved in the case is whether the period during which the applicant had worked in the canteen would or would not be counted for the purposes of regularisation. Initially the said period was counted and after being approved by D.P.C. under regularisation scheme of casual labour, the applicant was regularised vide order dated 29.12.88. Subsequently the department found that the applicant was initially engaged in departmental canteen on casual basis during April, 1979 and worked upto March, 1982. It was also found by the department that the applicant was brought on muster roll only in August, 1982 and continued thereafter till the date of r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. Ashok Kumar Sharma, L.D.C. in the Passport Office, Lucknow has challenged the order of his transfer from Lucknow to Bareilly passed on 16.10.96 (Annexure-3) and relieving order dated 6.11.96 (Annexure-4).2. The main ground of challenge is that the order is punitive in nature.3. To appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant, the brief facts of the case are given: As per the O.A., on 5.8.96 when the applicant was working in his office, he received a message from office counter that some one wants to see. When the applicant reached the counter, one of the neighbours of the applicant was found standing who requested the applicant for help in getting four passport forms of his relative, which were to be scrutinised with original document. As per the new system, the original documents were required to be produced for perusal of the counter clerk. The applicant helped the checking clerk in comparing entries made in the forms with the original documents. It was duri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. Vide this O. A. the applicant has sought setting aside of the order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the State of U.P. placing him under suspension with immediate effect. He has also sought directions to respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid impugned order.2. The prayer of the applicant has been contested by the respondents and objections as also detailed counter reply and supplementary counter affidavit were filed by the State of U.P. The applicant filed rejoinder as also supplementary rejoinder. We have carefully gone through the same and also taken note of the detailed submissions of the learned counsel for the two sides made at the admission stage itself. The O.A.is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.3. Now a brief description of the factual background. The applicant, who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, was appointed as Director, U.P. Rajaswa Krishi Mandi Parishad vide an order dated 6.4.1997 and assumed the charge of that post on 8.4....
Tag this Judgment!