Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat ahmedabad Page 9 of about 124 results (0.133 seconds)

Feb 13 2001 (TRI)

G.K. Jhalla Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ473CAT

1. Heard Mr. Akil Kureshi for the applicants and Mr. K.K. Shah with Mrs. P.J. Davawala for the respondents. The applicants who are working as Superintendent and Inspectors and D.O.S. in different offices within the jurisdiction of the Rajkot Commissionerate of Central Excise and Customs, by filing this O.A. under provisions of the Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, have challenged their transfer order transferring them from Rajkot Commissionerate to different stations in Gujarat. Four of them are transferred to A'bad while one is transferred to Vadodara and another to Surat. They have all prayed for quashing and setting aside the transfer order contending that the impugned transfer order is illegal as the same seeks to transfer them out side their parent Commissionerate which is not permissible under the rules. It is also contended by the applicants that they have been transferred by way of punishment as they had resorted to strike against the behaviour of their Assi...

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 17 2000 (TRI)

B.S. Gehlot and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

Reported in : (2003)(2)SLJ411CAT

1. As the applicants in all these O.As. have raised the same issues and have sought the same relief and urged identical grounds in support of the application, we propose to dispose of all these O.As. by a common order.2. The applicants joined the army as emergency Commissioned Officers in the wake of the Chinese aggression and served for about five years before they were discharged. They became eligible to be considered against vacancies both in the Central and State Services which were kept reserved for them. The applicants were selected to the Gujarat State Police Service and joined as Deputy Superintendent of Police.They were subsequently promoted to the Indian Police Service where they arc presently serving.Mr. B.S. Gehlot applicant in O.A. 731/93, joined pre-commission training in the army on 21.1.1964 and joined the State Police Service on 15.12.1972. In view of his past service in the army, his deemed date of appointment as Dy. SP in the State Police Service was shown as 3.7.19...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 18 2000 (TRI)

Shri Nathalal Karamta Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. We have heard Mr. Raina for the applicant and Mrs. Davawala for the respondents 2. The applicant is an employee of the Postal Department and belongs to the scheduled tribe. He is aggrieved by the fact that at the time of his promotion to the selection grade in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 his claim was over looked and his juniors were promoted.3. As per the instruction of the Postal Department, persons are given next higher scale on completion of 16 years of service in the lower level and in case sufficient scheduled caste/Schedule tribe candidates are not available the qualifying service is reduced to 10 years. The applicant's claim is that he belongs to the scheduled tribes and as he had joined service in 1979 he was due to be considered in 1989. The department considered some persons who belong to the reserved categories but promoted one Shri R.B. Karmata in the higher grade with effect from 17.2.93. The applicant who is admittedly senior to Karmata was not so promoted. Mr. Rana s...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2000 (TRI)

M.S. Leuva and anr. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. The applicants are Officers in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department and were serving as Audit Officers in the Office of the Accountant General (Audit) Gujarat State when they filed the O.A. Their grievance is that they should have been promoted as Account/Audit Officer from the date the first vacancies were filled up after 9.4.81 when they became eligible and not from 1983 which is their actual date of promotion. They have prayed for a direction that they should be given the benefit of the Supreme Court Judgment in the case of Arati Ray Choudhury v. Union of India, (1974) 1 SCC 87 and that the seniority of the applicant No. 1 in the combined eligibility list for promotion to IA & AD cadre as on 1.7.1990 should be re-fixed.2.We have heard Mr. K.K. Shah for the applicants and Mr. M.S. Rao for the respondents.3. Mr. K.K. Shah states that the applicants belong to the S.C. and by rendering hard work they rose from lower posts and reached the level of Section Officer w.e.f. 9.4.1...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 12 2000 (TRI)

Deva Jehta Chavda Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. Mr. Sailesh Brahmbhatt for the applicant and Mr. B.N. Doctor for the respondents.2. This O. A arises out of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the applicant from the service on the ground that he had obtained the service by misrepresenting that he belonged to Schedule Tribe. The applicant was appointed as Telephone Operator in the Establishment of the respondents in the year 1983 and his appointment was made on the consideration that he belonged to Schedule Tribe. The applicant had furnished a caste certificate showing that he belonged to village Dholivav Ness in Junagadh Dist., residents of which are notified as Schedule Tribe by Gujarat Government. The applicant was given a charge sheet dated 06.05.88 alleging that he had secured employment under the SC/ST category by producing a false caste certificate and that he did not belong to Dholivav Ness. The inquiry officer after recording the evidence had submitted his report giving the findings that applicant di...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2000 (TRI)

R.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. We have heard Mr. Dholare for the applicant and Ms. Sheth for the respondents.2. The applicant has challenged the order dated 8.3.2000, as at annexure A/4 issued by the Disciplinary Authority viz the Assistant Commissioner, dismissing him from service by invoking the powers available to the Disciplinary Authority under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules.3. The applicant was working as Head Clerk in Kendriya Vidyalaya, Ahmcdabad region and he faced criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the Special Judge, Session Court No. 3 Ahmedabad held him guilty of the criminal charge under Sub-section 13(1)(d) of PC Act and he has been awarded the sentence to undergo RI for 15 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500A and in default of payment of fine, further RI for one month vide the judgment dated 13.8.96. The department'issued the show case notice dated 11.2.2000 for imposing the penalty on conviction on a criminal charge under Rule 19(1) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 where the...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2000 (TRI)

P.S. Bapat Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. We have heard Mr. Handa for the applicant and Ms. Sheth for the respondents.2. The applicant who had retired from the postal department as Group "A" officer is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents to consider his case for re-fixing his pay by giving option under F.R. 22.3. This is the second round of litigation. The applicant had earlier approached the Tribunal in O.A. 35/95 where he had brought out that he was earlier an officer of the PSS grade "B" and was empanelled for appointment for IPS Group "A". He was posted initially in Kerala but he had declined and was given an officiating appointment in IPS Group "A" in Kheda dist. w.e.f. May 1986 and subsequently was regularised in Group "A" cadre from 1.11.1986. There was some controversy about the period of three days from 26.7.86 to 28.7.86 where initially it was treated as break but subsequently was regularised by the department for the reason that the applicant had already been empanelled for Group "A" service and as such ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 2000 (TRI)

Amaji Motiji Makwana Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. The applicant who was working as EDBPM, Shiholi Moti, BO under the Gandhinagar HO was put off duty by the order dated 14.8.91 by Sub-Divisional Inspector of Postal, Gandhinagar, w.e.f. 14.8.91. The said order of put off duty was subsequently confirmed by the Supdt. of Post Office, vide his order dated 1.2.92 and it was further pointed out that he would not be entitled to any allowances during the said period.These orders were passed under the Rule 9 (3) of the P&T, EDDA, (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964. Thereafter on dated 27.3.92, Supdt.of Post Office. Gandhinagar division passed the order under Rule 6 of the EDDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 terminating the services of the applicant with immediate effect. On applicant preferring the appeal against the said order, the Appellate Authority i.e. the CPMG, Ahmedabad set aside the order of termination dated 27.3.92 and reminded the case to the Appointing Authority to initiate the de novo proceedings against the applicant und...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 14 2000 (TRI)

R.S. Khurana Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. Heard Mr. K.C. Bhatt for the applicant and Mr. B.N. Doctor for the respondent.2. The Postal department had notified for volunteers for the level of Postal Assistant in Postal Department by advertisement. Total number of vacancies available for direct recruitment quota was 30 and the department had proceeded on the basis that this would be distributed as follows: The applicant who belonged to the SC category had applied and had taken the test. According to him, his name was first in the merit list for the S.C. category whereas two posts were stated to be reserved for S.C.Before the appointment orders were issued the department took the view that there was excess representation of SC in the cadre and in terms of the Supreme Court directions it held that there could be no reservation for this category in respect of this particular recruitment.They have therefore not issued the appointment order to the applicant even though according to Mr. Bhatt the department had prepared lists of th...

Tag this Judgment!

May 12 2000 (TRI)

V.B. Raval Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ahmedabad

1. Heard Mr. Pathak learned advocate appearing for the applicant and Mr. Doctor, learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.2. The applicant who was serving as EDDA Jetalpur was served with an order of put off duty without payment of subsistence allowance on dated 19.2.91 and he has challenged that order by filing this O. A. He has also challenged the vires of rule 9 (3) of EDA (Service and Conduct) Rules, 1964. The applicant was served with a charge sheet on dated 14.5.90 and inquiry officer was also appointed to hold the inquiry on the charge levelled against him. The IO had started the inquiry proceedings and had informed the applicant to attend the inquiry from November, 1990. He had however refused the request of the applicant to engage Advocate to defend him. It is also alleged by the applicant that he was not provided with the necessary documents relied upon in the inquiry and therefore, the whole inquiry proceedings were vitiated. The applicant has therefore, praye...

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //