Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member MA 272/2012 is filed by the applicant in OA 408/2012 for amending the original prayer in the OA as under:- “To direct the respondents to publish the result for the Store Keeper (SK) Post which was called by the respondents in the advertisement No.002/ESTT/AVD dated 25-31 December 2010 in ‘Employment News’ within specified time.” 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has appeared for the written test and interview which was conducted pursuant to the advertisement No.002/ESTT/AVD dated 25-31 December 2010 in ‘Employment News’ for the post of Store Keeper. The total number of vacancies are 4 (UR). The applicant approached the respondents under the RTI Act, vide RTI application dated 29.2.2012 to get information regarding the results of the selection. When he could not get the information under the RTI Act, he has filed a personal representation dated 12.3.2012 and the present OA. 3....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- “To direct the respondents to consider and pass orders on the representation dated 18.1.2011 and a reminder dated 19.11.2011, on merits and as per law and Rules and within a time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.R.Syed Mustafa is directed to take notice for the respondents and file memo of appearance. 3. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant was appointed as Part time Librarian on 26.8.1994. Since then, he has been working continuously but his services have not yet been regularized. He had submitted his representation dated 18.1.2011 seeking regularization. When the said representation was pending, the respondents have issued OM dated 11.3.2011. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a reminder dated 19.11.2011 seeking extension of the benefit o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Mrs. O.P. Sosamma Administrative Member The applicant in this O.A. is challenging the notification issued by the second respondent in letter No.CRME/AO/Rectt/2011 dated 24.10.2010 calling for applications for filling up the post of Section Officer in the Office of the second respondent and seeks a direction to the respondent to promote him to the post of Section Officer. 2. The contention of the applicant is that as per the recruitment rules, the method of filling up the post of Section Officer in the office of the second respondent is 20% by direct recruitment, 40% by Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and 40% by promotion from among Assistants. The claim of the applicant is that he is the senior most Assistant and has the necessary qualification and experience for being appointed to the post of Section Officer and since he has already been granted scale of pay equivalent to the post of Section Officer under ACP/MACP scheme and since he is stagnated in the post of UDC ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
G. Shanthappa, Judicial Member The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:- “To call for the records related to letters No.T/P608/IX/SandTAdmin/JE/II/Signal/20% LDCE 10-11-2010 passed by the 2nd Respondent and to direct the respondents to do the necessary to constitute a selection board for further processing the selection as per the rules in vogue.” 2. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant, while working as Technician Grade I, was subjected to a written examination for promotion to the post of Junior Engineer Grade II Signal under 20% LDCE quota. The applicant qualified in the written examination and has merit. Since he was not considered for promotion, he submitted his representation dated 30.10.2010. He contended that the second respondent, who is incompetent to annul the selection, has cancelled the same through the letter dated 10.11.2010 which is impugned in the OA. 3. Learned c...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Shri. R. Satapathy, Member (A) This is an application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. 2. The applicant Shri R.Raman has originally filed this application seeking the following relief:- “to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order issued vide B3/22/2005 dated 30.1.2006 issued by the Superintendent of Post Office, Dindigul Division, the second respondent herein and to quash the same and to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to promote the applicant as Postman, Dindigul Division w.e.f. the date his juniors were promoted with all consequential, service and monetary benefits”. 3. In the meantime it happened that the applicant has expired on 31.12.2009. Thereafter, his wife S.Shanthi and his son R.Vignesh are witness and have applied as legal heirs to pursue the case. 4. We have heard both sides and perused necessary records. The claim of the applicant is to promote him from the post of GDS Packer to the group 'D' post of Postman. It is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Mrs. O.P. Sosamma, Administrative Member The applicant, who is working as Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the General Manager, Postal Accounts and Finance Tamil Nadu Circle, is challenging the orders of transfer issued by the fifth respondent in O.O.No.102/Admn/EAI/T-20/11-12 dated 6.9.2011 transferring him from Chennai to Tiruchirappalli. 2. The applicant is challenging the orders of transfer on the main ground that the fifth respondent i.e. General Manager, PAF Tamil Nadu Chennai is not the competent authority to issue the impugned transfer order and in fact, this is the only ground urged by the learned counsel for the applicant during arguments. In support of this contention, the applicant cites the orders of Govt. in letter No.2-24/2009-PACE/KV/2914 to 3065 dated 19.11.2010 which deals with the ‘procedure of work in regard to powers delegated to DDG (PAF).’ As per this letter the issue of Transfer/posting orders of AAO/AO/Sr.AO cadre in DoP and DoT will be d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
G. Shanthappa, Member (J)) This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, seeking the following relief: “(i) To quash or set aside the order C. No./inq/1 dated 18/4/2012 passed by the second respondent in F. No. C13/02/2008-CIU (VIG) in so far as para 1, laying condition that Defence Assistant should not be a practising advocate, and not having more than seven cases on hand. (ii) To direct the first respondent to issue a speaking order with regard to the engagement of legal practitioner taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. The case of the applicant is that while he was working as Appraiser, departmental proceedings were initiated against her in respect of misconduct alleged against her in the year 2007. The Disciplinary Authority has appointed the 2nd respondent herein as the Inquiry Officer as per Rule 14(2) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. It is his further case that in the course of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
Hon'ble Shri.R.Satapathy, Member (A) This is an OA filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. 2. The applicant Mr.M.V.Fernando a retired senior Loco Inspector/Loco Supervisor has filed this OA seeking the following relief:- “to call for records relating to the first respondent's order made in B/P.500/Reg./Misc. dated 3.9.2010 to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to step up of the pay on par with their juniors Tvl.P.M.Rajarathnam, Sowri Rajulu and Abdul Sathar, and for consequential relief of arrears of pay, revised pension and pensionary benefits forthwith”. 3. It is the case of the applicant that his junior Tvl.P.M.Rajarathnam, Sowri Rajulu and Abdul Sathar, are getting higher pay. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order of the co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA Nos.290/2002 and 292/2002 dated 01.08.2003. Learned copunsel for the applicant states that while ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
G. Shanthappa, Member (J) All India Association of Central Excise Gazetted Executive Officers, Chennai Unit and one Shri K. Sudarsan who is the member of the said association filed this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and dispose of the representation dated 20.10.2010. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 3. Shri S. Muthusamy, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has instructions from the 2nd respondent i.e. Central Board of Customs and Excise to take adjournment after vacation, since the Board has to take a decision on the subject. 4. We have considered the request of the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The applicants have submitted their representation on 20.10.2010 marked as Annexure A1 to the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi with regard to proper implementation of MACP Scheme. Para 11 of the repre...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Madras
G. Shanthappa, Member (J) The above application is filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief : “To direct the 1st respondent to consider his representation dated 19.01.2012 requesting to place him above the 2nd respondent's name in the cadre of Asst. Engineer and for consequential benefits.” 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has made several representations for regularisation of his service in the cadre of Assistant Engineer since has been working on ad-hoc basis for a long time. According to the learned counsel the said representations were pending for consideration. 3. Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, counsel representing Government of Puducherry submits that he is directed to take notice for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel from either side submit that similar relief claimed by the applicant in O.A. 212 of 2012 has already been decided by this Tribunal by an order dated 20.02.2012 wherein the follow...
Tag this Judgment!