Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A). 1. The applicant of this OA is working as Scientist F posted in the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. He is aggrieved and has approached this Tribunal on account of denial to him of uniform application of residency period in implementation of Flexible Complementary Scheme (FCS, in short), according to which, the in situ FCS promotion has to be granted on completion of the prescribed minimum residency period, subject to fitness. The grievance of the applicant is that he was due for promotion in terms of FCS much prior to the date from which he has actually been granted such promotion. He has claimed that this decision is contrary to the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court dated 05.10.2010 in CWP No.14263/2004 in the case of Dr.S.K.Murti vs. Union of India and Others, a copy of which has been produced by him at Annexure A-2, and the judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered on 02.05.2011 in SLP (Civil) No.13133/2011 (C.C.6864/2011) ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 2. M.A. No.1624/2014 filed under Rule 4(5)(a) of C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 for joining together, is allowed. 3. In the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to regularize their services by formulating one time policy in view of the judgments of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court and further by considering the decisions of the other States, which have regularized the services of the contractual employees. 4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the respondents appointed the applicants as Staff Nurse in G.T.B., Dilshad Garden, Delhi on contract basis and have been continuing in such capacity for quite long. According to him, the initial appointment of the applicants was based on an interview. He submitted that once the Government of Jammu and Kashmir could tak...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral ). G. George Paracken, Member (J). OA No.1933/2014 The applicant has filed this Original Application seeking the following reliefs:- 8.1.Direction be passed to the Director (R2) to conclude the disciplinary proceeding at fast pace in unbiased, just and fair manner strictly following the relevant CCA(CCS) rules. 8.2.Direction be passed to the Director (R2) not to suspend me without prior approval from Honble Court viewing his proven mala fides intent and arbitrary action. 8.3.Cost of the application be allowed from ICAR. 8.4.Damage be allowed to me as suffered hardship, agony, financial loss and loss of reputation due to misuse of power of the Director, thus be allowed from the salary of the Director. 2. As far as the first prayer to conclude the disciplinary proceedings at fast pace in unbiased, just and fair manner strictly following the relevant CCA (CCS) rules is concerned, we have inquired from the applicant whether any disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against him...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. The present OAs bearing Nos.3080 of 2013, 3155 of 2013, 3165 of 2013, 3219 of 2013, 3171 of 2013, 3250 of 2013, 3251 of 2013, 3663 of 2013 and 3269 of 2013 have been heard together on the request of counsel for the parties on the ground that the issues and reliefs claimed in these OAs are identical. Common arguments were made by the counsel of both sides in the aforenoted cases. The respondents are also common. In view of above, we are disposing of all these OAs by this common order. The leading case adopted for considering the pleadings as well as documents is OA No.3080/2013. OA No.3080 of 2013 2. The applicants, who are serving as PGT/TGT under the Directorate of Education (DOE), Govt. of NCT of Delhi (GNCT) are aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not allowing them to appear in the interview for appointment to the post of Principal, DOE, GNCT. 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that Respondent No.1 issued advertisement for appointment to t...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
Sudhir Kumar, Member (A): 1. These four connected cases were heard together, reserved for orders together and are, therefore, being disposed of through a common order. For the sake of convenience, facts of these cases will be discussed, as described by taking up the case of applicant of OA No.3651/2011 first. 2. The short question involved in these cases is as to when a person, who is duly selected, by the prescribed method and procedure for selection, for appointment to a post, but is not issued a letter of appointment for over a decade, and thus does not join his duties in time, and is then issued a very much belated letter of appointment, and joins duties after more than a decade of his original selection, whether he would be entitled to ante-dated seniority on the basis of his seniority in the original merit list/panel prepared by the selecting body, more than a decade back, irrespective of the rights created in the interregnum in favour of his own panel mates, as well as those who...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). 1. This Review Application has been filed for correction of a minor error that has crept in our order dated 23.04.2014 in OA-3835/2013. 2. Learned counsel for the review applicant argued that the applicant had already cleared the examination Part-I but had not been declared qualified in Part-II relating to physical standards. The Tribunal while allowing the O.A. has inadvertently ordered conduct of the entire PET examination again instead of restricting the fresh PET examination only to physical standards. Learned counsel for the respondents has not opposed the plea of the review applicant. 3. We have considered the submissions of the review applicant and we are convinced that first line of Para-5 of our order should read as Under these circumstances, we allow this O.A. and direct Delhi Police to get fresh PET Examination Part-II Physical standards of the applicant conducted by BSF. This Review Application is accordingly allowed and Registry is dire...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V.N. Gaur, Member (A). 1. The applicant was appointed as Secretary, Lalit Kala Akademi (LKA) on 03.04.2001. He was suspended through an order dated 14.02.2013 issued by Assistant Secretary (Admn.) of LKA with the approval of the Chairman, LKA, Sh. K.K.Chakravarty, who took over the charge of the post on 13.02.2013 as per respondents version. That suspension order was revoked by another order of same date, i.e., 14.02.2013 signed by Shri K.R.Subbanna, Acting Chairman, LKA who according to the applicant was legally authorized to exercise the powers of Chairman, LKA since the new Chairman Sh. K.K.Chakravorty joined his office on 15.02.2013. Otherwise also, the suspension order dated 14.02.2013 had not been reviewed within 90 days of the date of issue of that order, and therefore, it automatically lapsed after the expiry of 90 days. The respondents, however, by an order dated 14.06.2013 revoked the suspension order and issued a fresh suspension order on the same date after the matter had b...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J): 1. The applicant, who is working as Staff Nurse in the Sardar Vallababhai Patel Hospital, New Delhi, filed the present OA questioning the Order dated 08.08.2013 (Annexure A1) of the Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate (Seelampur) in directing him to surrender his OBC Certificate dated 14.01.2010 (sic. 4.01.2010) which was cancelled by Order dated 03.05.2012, to his office. 2. It is submitted that the applicant hails from Village, Kolida, District Sikar, Rajasthan and belongs to Jaat Community which is recognized as Backward Class. On his application, in pursuance of an Advertisement No.004/2009 issued by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, in short), he was selected to the post of Staff Nurse under OBC category, and accordingly, he joined at Sardar Vallabhabai Patel Hospital, New Delhi. 3. It is further submitted that the Tehsildar/ Executive Magistrate, Seelampur, Delhi vide the impugned Annexure A1 Order dated 08.08.2013, while informing that ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). Ashok Kumar, Member (A): 1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the show cause notice dated 24.08.2013 issued by the respondent no.2 by which the applicant has been required to show cause as to why his appointment should not be terminated under Para 9(b) of the Executive Instructions. According to the applicant, he has been working as a Driver with respondent no.2 since 12.03.2009. However, he was restrained from performing the duties w.e.f. 24.5.2013. He gave his representation to the same but despite the receipt of the representation, the respondents issued Show Cause Notice dated 24.8.2013. He has filed the present OA wherein following reliefs have been sought:- i). set aside the impugned show cause notice No.SPD/PFC (DR)/2013/5221 dated 24.08.2013 (Annexure-A-1) passed by respondents and direct them to allow applicant to continue his duty in the department; ii). direct the respondents to call for verification report of the driving licence No.M-...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi
(Oral). G. George Paracken, Member (J): 1. The applicant has filed this OA against the order dated 7.5.2013 passed by the Consortium for Education Communication (An Inter University Centre of University Grants Commission on Electronic Media) IUAC (NSC) Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi and Director Governing Board Consortium for Educational Communication (An Inter University Centre of University Grants Commission on Electronic Media) IUAC (NSC) Campus, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi and others. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the applicant on the question of jurisdiction to entertain this Original Application. He agreed that the respondent Consortium for Education Communication is not a notified Organisation under Section 14 (2) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 which reads as under:- (2). The Central Government may, by notification, apply with effect from such date as may be specified in the notification the provisions of sub-section (3) to local or other authorities...
Tag this Judgment!