Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ114CAT
1. The grievance of the applicant in this O.A. is to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 29.3.2000 and 16.8.2000 and to direct the respondents to treat the period of suspension of the applicant as on duty and not as dies non and to grant pay @ 95% in terms of Sub-rules (5), (8) of FR 54-B.2. While the applicant working as Income Tax Officer in Mumbai, inspection of his work revealed several short comings with regard to the assessment orders passed by him. After receiving his explanation and presenting the case he was placed under suspension with effect from 19.4.1984. A charge-sheet was issued to him and thereafter a regular inquiry was held and finally the disciplinary authority passed order on 28.1.1987 imposing the penalty of removal from service on the applicant. The applicant had challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 26/88 which was allowed by order dated 8.8.1991 on the ground that the copy of inquiry report had not been served to the officer. The respond...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(3)SLJ55CAT
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for direction to the respondents to count applicant's seniority from the date of his initial appointment, i.e.w.e.f. 22.1.1981 in the grade of LDC, accordingly, modify the seniority list as on 1.4.1994 and 1.2.1996 circulated vide letter dated 14.7.93 and 12.2.1996 respectively, promote the applicant to the post of Upper Division Clerk w.e.f. 12.2.1996 when his juniors, superseding him were promoted with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant claims that he was appointed as Labourer in temporary capacity with the office of Director of Civil Supplies and Disposal w.e.f. 20.4.1977, was confirmed vide order dated 27.11.1979. On acquiring qualification of S.S.C. in the year 1978, being eligible to be promoted as Lower Division Clerk, the respondents conducted a departmental competitive examination in the year 1980, the applicant appeared in the said examination, competed with the nominees of Employme...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ345CAT
1. These eleven Original Applications moved under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 have been filed by junior Telecom Officers posted at different divisions of Maharashtra Circle of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in Short, BSNL) who have been transferred by a common transfer order. The transfer of each of the applicant is from their respective Telecom Division to Goa Telecom Division. The transfer order has been communicated to applicants by Assistant General Manager (SI) at the office of Chief General Manager, Telecom, Maharastra Circle, Mumbai by letter dated 26.11.2000 on a letter head of BSNL wherein it is stated that as per approval of Chief General Manager Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai the said transfers and postings are ordered.As each applicant has challenged the order of transfer by filing separate O.A. In these O.As., beside taking common grounds, they have raised pleas on merit applicable to individual cases.2. The facts giving rise to these O.As. are that the ap...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ487CAT
1. The facts in this case, as brought forth by the applicant and as gleamed from the reply statement of the respondents arc that the applicant was working in the Railways from 1962 and had reached the position of Goods Driver, before he finally retired. He states that he had submitted an application dated 6.2.1991 retirement from the Railways which was accepted vide letter dated 12.3.1991 (Annexures A-3 and A-4). The retirement was sought w.e.f. 31.5.1991 as seen from Annexure A-3. The applicant further states that vide letter dated 19.4.1991, however he informed respondent No. 2 that the aforesaid application dated 6.2.1991 may be treated as withdrawn/cancelled. He underscores the fact that this letter was issued well before expiry of three months i.e. before 5.5.1991. The applicant was informed vide letter dated 31.5.1991 by respondent No. 3, that his application seeking withdrawal/cancellation of request for voluntary retirement had been rejected and that he was to retire w.e.f. 31...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ164CAT
1. This is an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to quash and cancel the suspension order dated 11.10.1989, Memorandum of charges, Enquiry Officer's report, the dismissal order, the order rejecting the appeal with a direction to the respondents to issue orders under FR 54 declaring that the period of suspension till the period of dismissal be treated as period of duty for all purposes including pay, pension, leave etc., with all benefits.2. The applicant while working as Inspector of Income Tax on 5.8.1988, CBI, SPE, Mumbai Searched the residence of the applicant and reported his findings for further action. On 11.10.1989, respondent No. 1, the Commissioner of Income Tax, placed the applicant under suspension under Rule 10(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. On 12.10.1989 memorandum of charges under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was served on applicant. The applicant approached the Tribunal by O.A. 685/91 with a prayer that order of suspension may b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ6CAT
1. The applicant, in this case, Shri D.L. Lulla, comes up to this Tribunal seeking the declaration that he is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses of Rs. 97,481/- as claimed by him and for a declaration that the rejection of the claim by the respondents vide letters dated 9.11.1999 and 27.11.1999 being illegal and arbitrary, these letters are liable to be set aside. Directions for payment of the aforesaid claim along with 12% interest from 1.10.1998 is also sought.2. The facts of the case, as brought forth by the applicant, are that he retired from government service from 31.1.1988 and that even before his retirement he was taking treatment for problems of chronic blood pressure, diabetes and heart problem from Jagjivan Ram Hospital (J.R.Hospital) of Western Railway. He states that he had his first heart attack in March, 1987 and further again in January, 1996 and on both occasions had got admitted to the aforesaid Jagjivan Ram Hospital.Details of his grave problems on admis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ233CAT
1. The applicant has assailed order dated 19.11.1997 (Ex. A) whereby he is sought to be prematurely retired under Rule 1802 (a) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume-II. The applicant was functioning as Assistant Controller of Stores, Group 'B' at the time the aforesaid order was passed. The applicant has sought quashing and setting aside of the aforesaid order with consequential benefits.2. The learned Counsel of the applicant Mr. G.S. Walia has basically raised two issues in the present matter - (1) that the impugned order has not been passed by the appointing authority, i.e., the General Manager and that it has been passed against the provisions of the Statutory Rule 1802 (a) ; and (2) that while the objective of compulsory retirement under the provisions of Rule 1802 (a) is to weed out the dead wood when an employee has outlived his utility, the applicant's meritorious and efficient service of thirty years has not been taken into account and the impugned order has been ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ43CAT
1. In this application, the applicant has challenged the order dated 31.5.1995 passed by the disciplinary authority removing him from service. He has stated that he had preferred an appeal against the removal order vide his Memo of Appeal dated 29.6,1995 but "no information has been given to the applicant until the filing of this Original Application". This O.A. has been filed on 23.9.1996.2. With regard to the aforesaid submission made by the applicant, we note that the respondents in their reply filed on 13.1.1997, have submitted in paragraph 11 as follows: "Shri S. A. Thakur has submitted an appeal against the said order of "Removal from service" issued by COMCG (W), to the appellate authority viz DGCG. The said appeal has been considered by the said appellate authority and the same has been rejected keeping in view the nature of the offence leading to the charges. The said decision has been communicated to the charged employee by RHQ (W) letter No. CGR/CE/269/SAT dated 09 Apr 96 o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ237CAT
1. This is an application made by Dr. H.D. Ramaiya, who had been working as Public Health Dentist with the Administration of Union Territory of Daman & Diu seeking the relief from this Tribunal as follows : "(A) The Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to call for the records and proceedings of the present case and after exaining the legality and propriety thereof quash and set aside the orders at Annexure 'A-1 and Annexure 'A-2' and further direct the respondents to pay the applicant the arrears of salary for the period from 1.3.2000 till 14.7.2000 and accordingly also fix the applicant's pensions on the basis of the last drawn salary along with all consequential benefits. (B) This Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to hold and declare that the action on the part of the respondents in not disbursing to the applicant the salary benefits for the period from 1.3.2000 till 14.7.2000 is illegal and bad in law and accordingly direct the respondents to pay to the applicant salary for the period from 1....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Mumbai
Reported in : (2003)(1)SLJ241CAT
1. The lowest rung of Group 'A' of Indian Railway Senior Electrical Engineering Service is junior scale Rs. 2200-4000/-. Promotion to Group 'A' is made from amongst eligible Group 'B' officers belonging to Electrical Engineering Department, who have put in minimum of 3 years non-fortuitous service in the grade. The promotion is by way of selection.2. The two applicants were promoted to Group 'B' on 8.4.80 and 2.1.81 respectively. The respondents 3, 4 and 5 were promoted to Group 'B' on 17.10.84, 5.1.87 and 2.1.87 respectively. The applicant as well as the private respondents were considered for promotion and were recommended by the DPC which met in February, 1992 and were appointed to Group 'A' Junior scale by order dated 25.4.1992. The DPC prepared year-wise panels against 99 vacancies and recommended 94 officers for promotion.A notification dated 24.4.1992 was issued promoting them, which comprises of the applicant and the private respondents. Though the applicants are admittedly se...
Tag this Judgment!