Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. Heard, Shri S.C. Jindal for the applicant and Mrs. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents on the issue of maintainability of the present T.A. 2.The applicant, NDMC Avam Karamchari Bachao Morcha, a Registered Union of employees of NDMC under the Indian Trade Unions Act, 1926, through its General Secretary, originally filed the Writ Petition (C) No.5244/2013 before the Honble High Court of Delhi seeking the following reliefs: (a)To issue a Writ of Quo Warranto holding that the extension of Respondent No.4 as Advisor (Revenue) and Advisor (Legal) NDMC is illegal and void under the New Delhi Municipal Council Act, 1994 and instructions of the Government issued from time to time and the post be filled up by Respondent No.1 in accordance with law. To set up an independent enquiry into the alleged illegality and conspiracy made by Respondents with other officials of NDMC who are giving extension after extension to Respondent No.4 in violation of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
P.K. Basu, Member (A) The applicant joined as Assistant Director in the respondent organization i.e. National Productivity Council (NPC) in 1969 and after serving the organization, retired as Director on 30.04.2002. This application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs: respondent to pay to the petitioner his due honorarium @ US$15 per page for 200 pages of editing and proof reading work completed by the petitioner for the programme organized by NPC in collaboration with Asian Productivity Organization (APO) after deducting NPC share; respondent to pay honorarium due to the petitioner @ US$500 per programme for the three programmes organized in collaboration with the Colombo Plan Secretariat (CPS) for discharging the duties of programme coordinator i.e. full payment amounting to US$1500; to release ex-gratia payment for the year 1994-95 to the petitioner in accordance with the rules of the NPC; to reimburse the medical claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. Applicant in this case is aggrieved by the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him which culminated in the orders of the Disciplinary Authority removing him from service as modified by the Revisional Authoritys order compulsorily retiring him from service. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Applicant was proceeded under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) 1968 and he was served with the Annexure A-8 Memorandum dated 01.10.2004 containing the following Statement of Article of Charges:- That Sh. Shiv Raj Singh/HBC/Ambala while working as such on dated 25.5.04 at 18.45 hrs in Booking Office Ambala Cantt and manning counter no.4 was subjected to vigilance check and detected to have committed following serious acts of omission and commission:- That Sh. Shiv Raj Singh HBC/Ambala Cantt is responsible for defrauding railways by taking matter of ticket no.C-1453874 higher value Ex UMB-Mumbai Rs.1040/- 4 Adults on tickets no.1...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member, J. 1. The applicant retired as Foreman on superannuation on 31.07.2008. He filed the present OA questioning the Annexure A1 (Colly.) impugned orders dated 30.04.2011 (Annexure A1), 21.09.2011 and 15.10.2011, in revising his pension and other retirement benefits, and in ordering for recovery of the excess amount paid to him, and also for a direction to refund the amounts of Rs.64,936/- and Rs.1,48,242/- which were recovered from his retirement benefits with interest. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as Turner with effect from 14.02.1972. Thereafter, he was appointed as Chargeman (Rubber Technologist), on his selection in a limited departmental competitive examination, in the Corps of EME in the Pay scale of Rs.425-700 w.e.f. 04.09.1984 and again promoted as Senior Chargeman. He was promoted as Assistant Foreman in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 w.e.f. 07.04.2003 and again as Foreman in the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 and his pay was fixed on 1.04.2006 and u...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, Member, J. This case was earlier dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.01.2010. The operative part of the said order reads as under:- 8.They have further explained that consequent upon acceptance of the 4th CPC recommendations by the Government, the pay scale of Grade-A Stenographers of RBSSS (Rs.650-1200) and Grade B (Rs.650-1040) were merged and a common pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 was given to them with effect from 01.01.1986. Thus, from 1.1.1986 both the grades stand merged. The Stenographers working in the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- i.e. (Grade A and B merged) used to be designated as Sr. Personal Assistant. Subsequent to the revision of the nomenclature of various Grades of RBSSS, the Sr.PA which was equivalent to the Grade A and B merged were revised as Private Secretary. Now the stenographers Grade-C who were earlier promoted to the Grade-B are being promoted to the post of Private Secretary which is equivalent to the Grade A and B merged. Su...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V.N. Gaur, Member (A): 1. MA No.643/2012, for joining together in single application under Rule 4 (5) (a) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and MA No.2848/2012, seeking condonation of delay in filing the present OA, are allowed in the interest of justice. 2.The applicants, Bhartiya Pratiraksha Mazdoor Sangh and four others, who are working as Laboratory Technicians in the hospitals under the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB), filed this OA with the following prayers: A.All Laboratory Technicians working with the respondents should be granted the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 as per the recommendation of the Vth Central Pay Commission (revised Pay Band II and G.P. 4200 as per the VIth Pay Commission Recommendations) irrespective of the qualifications of the incumbents as has been given to Medical Assistants. B.The benefits of such orders should be given to the applicants/Laboratory Technicians from the date of acceptance of the Vth Central Pay Commission. C.Grant consequ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
G. George Paracken, J. 1. Applicants grievance in this Original Application is that his position in the seniority list of Deputy Legislative Counsel (DLC for short) has been altered to his disadvantage after several years, that too, without any notice. 2.The brief facts of the case are that in the recruitment year 2002-03, there were 2 vacancies for the post of DLCs, i.e., 1 under direct recruitment quota and other under the promotion quota. For recruitment of the Direct Recruit quota candidate, the UPSC issued advertisement on 26.04.2003. From amongst the candidates applied for the aforesaid post, the UPSC, on 25.09.2003, recommended one Shri Ashok G. Pawade for appointment and he accordingly joined the said post on 19.08.2000. However, the vacancy earmarked under the Promotion Quota could not be filled due to non-availability of eligible candidates. Later on, one Shri N.K. Ambastha was promoted as DLC against the aforesaid carried forward vacancy of 2003-04. The Private Respondent No...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
V.N. Gaur, Member (A): The applicant in this case is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing her to withdraw her resignation tendered on 18.02.2009. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was offered appointment as Specialist Grade-II (Cardiology) under respondent no.2 vide letter dated 07.08.2008 issued by respondent no.1. On the request of the applicant dated 28.01.2009 for extension of time for joining, the respondent no.1 informed her that the offer of appointment dated 07.08.2008 would lapse on 07.02.2009 on expiry of six months. The applicant then submitted her joining report on 06.02.2009 to respondent no.2. After 12 days, vide letter dated 18.02.2009 the applicant submitted her resignation stating as follows: To The Medical Superintendent, Dr. R.M.L. Hospital, New Delhi. Subj: Resignation from Specialist post. Respected Sir, Due to certain personal reasons I will not be able to continue as Specialist [Cardiology]. Kindly accept my resignation with imm...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. This O.A. has been filed seeking the following relief:- (A) By an appropriate Order or Direction the respondents be directed to prepare/recast the seniority list dated 26.04.2010 as per the judgment dated 27.11.2012 of the Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar before effecting any further promotion to the post of Income Tax Officers. Further, the seniority list of Inspectors under the covering letter dated 26.04.2010 be declared as defunct and inoperative immediately on the pronouncement of the judgement of the Honble Apex Court on 27.11.2012. (B) By an appropriate Order or Direction the respondents be directed to recast/modify the seniority list dated 26.04.2010 as per the judgment dated 27.11.2012 of the Apex Court in the case of N.R. Parmar within a time frame and place the applicants at the appropriate place in that seniority list with all consequential benefits. (C) That respondents be directed to conduct Review DPCs based on the said recast seniorit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi
Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) 1. This is second round of litigation. Earlier aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not appointing him as Head of Regional Centre, NBSS and LUP, New Delhi, the applicant had filed OA-3162/2011. This was decided in favour of the applicant on 23.04.2012. The operative part of the order was as follows:- 11. On the basis of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that there was no valid basis for the respondents in not issuing the appointment letter in the name of the applicant for appointment as Head of NBSS and LUP, Regional Centre, Delhi. The applicant has scored the highest marks as per the parameters of the ASRB. The marks were much more than then the marks allotted to Respondent No. 7 and the ASRB has recommended the name of the applicant for appointment on the post. The appointment was no given to the applicant on the ground that the name of the applicant was not recommended by the ASRB but the appointment was not given to him on the ground ...
Tag this Judgment!