Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat hyderabad Page 1 of about 520 results (0.164 seconds)

Aug 21 2009 (TRI)

D. Babu Vamsidhar, S/O. Late Prabhakar Vs. the Director, Shar Centre, ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondent in not providing appointment to the applicant under compassionate grounds is illegal, arbitrary; and for a consequential direction to the respondent to consider his case for appointment to any suitable post under compassionate grounds. 3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents produced the report of the committee constituted to scrutinize pending applications for grant of compassionate appointment in SDSC SHAR dated 19.11.2003. As seen from the said report, the Committee considered the relative merits of 46 applicants applied for appointment under compassionate grounds. The committee, after considering all the cases on the basis of the guidelines issued by the DOPT, found that there are only two cases without adequate...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 19 2009 (TRI)

Mrs. Anita Pandey, W/O. C.S. Pandey Vs. Ministry of Rural Development, ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. Khader Mohiddin, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. B. Raj Kiran, learned standing counsel for respondents. 2. This application is filed challenging the action of the respondents in notifying the post of Dy. Director (Official Language) for filling it up on deputation basis vide Advertisement published in Times of India on 19.06.2008. 3. It is contended by the applicant that the said post cannot be filled up on deputation basis and it shall be filled up only by way of direct recruitment. This Tribunal on the very first day of the hearing, while granting time for filing reply by the respondents, passed an interim order to the effect that no appointment shall be made in pursuance of the impugned notification. Thereafter, the respondents have not pursued with the said notification. On the other hand, they have issued fresh notification on 27.06.2009 notifying the very same post for filling it up...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 14 2009 (TRI)

P. Ramu and Others Vs. Government of India, Ministry of Defence and Ot ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (J) This application has been filed by the applicants seeking for the following relief : To issue an order or direction (i) declaring the action of the Respondents in filling up the six vacancies of Office Attendant 'A' in Group-D posts through Direct Recruitment vide Government of India, Employment News dated 6-12 November, 2004 rejecting the claim of applicants for regularisation against 6 (six) vacancies available is arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and violation of Article 14, 16, 21 and 39 (1)(d) of Constitution of India; (ii) and consequently direct the respondents to regularise the services of the applicants as Group-D employees against the Office Attendant 'A' post with effect from the dates from the completing 3 years service in terms of principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1992 SC Page 2130 and subsequent judgments with all consequential benefits. 2. It is the case of the applicants that they joined in the 3rd res...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2009 (TRI)

T. Hemantha Kumar Singh, Senior Ticket Examiner Vs. the Senior Divisio ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This application is filed challenging the charge memo dated 08.06.2006. But no interim order was passed by this Tribunal and this Tribunal allowed the department to proceed with the inquiry, but directed not to pass final orders till the filing of the reply. But thereafter reply has been filed. The applicant made several contentions in this application. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that this is a clear case where the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Paul Anthony's case and GM Tank's case are very much applicable as the charges considered by the criminal court and the charges framed by the department and also witness adduced in the departmental case and in the criminal case are one and the same. He further contended that the applicant got acquitted i...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 13 2009 (TRI)

Sk. Syed Mastan Babu, S/O. S. Chand Mastan Vs. Union of India, Rep. by ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. S. Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.C. Jacob, learned standing counsel for respondent Railways. 2. This application is filed to refix the seniority of the applicant in the combined seniority list of Group 'B' Gazetted Officers of Transportation, Traffic and Commercial Department for the purpose of future promotions and to fix the seniority of the applicant over and above the unofficial respondents 4 to 12. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicant while working as Senior Commercial Inspector appeared in the selection for the cadre of Assistant Commercial Manager in the Commercial Department against the 70% quota to which Senior Commercial Inspector is the feeder cadre. Selection consists of written examination, viva-voce and medical test. The applicant qualified in the written test and he was called for interview and thereafter, he was qualified both i...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2009 (TRI)

G.D. Priyadarshini, D/O. Late Sri G. BenjamIn Deenaiah and Others Vs. ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Counsel for the applicant is absent. Learned counsel for UPSC submitted that no orders need be passed in this application as the prayer sought by the applicants in this application has already been conceded and appointments have also been given and therefore, the OA may be closed. 2. We have perused the relief prayed for in this application. The relief prayed in this application is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to approve the select list of the members of the State Civil Service for the year 2006 and for consequential direction to take up immediately thereafter the appointment of the members of the State Civil Service to the IAS based on the Select List for the year 2006 and to accord all consequential benefits. 3. This application was filed on 15.09.2008 by which time the selection process was not complete. Now, the selection process has been completed not only in respect of the year 2006, but also i...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 12 2009 (TRI)

A. Ramaswamy Vs. the Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. S. Rama Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned senior central government standing counsel for the respondents, who took notice on behalf of the respondents. 2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the inaction on the part of the respondents to appoint the applicant in the post of GDSBPM, Porandla BO, a/w. Manakonduru SO, Karimnagar Division, is arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also to set aside the impugned notification dated 19.06.2009 and also for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as GDS/BPM, Porandla BO. 3. Relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicant belongs to SC community and he passed S.S.C. (X class) in the year 1986. When the earlier incumbent in the post EDBPM, Porandl...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2009 (TRI)

K. Iylaiah, S/O. Laxmaiah Vs. Union of India, Rep. by General Manager, ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. M. Venkanna, learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. A.P. Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for respondents. 2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant vide memo dated 19.09.2008 and the memo dated 17.09.2008 as arbitrary, illegal, violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and to set aside the same and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits. 3. Relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicant has been working as Licenced Porter in Railways for the past 30 years. The railways have introduced a scheme for rehabilitating the railway porters by way of appointing them as Trackman, provided they are fit for B1 category. The applicant and several other Porters were screened f...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 11 2009 (TRI)

B. Viswanadham, Pvt. Secretary (Retd.), Mceme, Secunderabad Vs. Union ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. K. Phani Raj, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M. Brahma Reddy, learned Senior Panel Counsel for the Central Government for respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is a covered case and in similar case, C.A.T., Principal Bench, New Delhi passed an order dated 22.11.2000 in O.A. No. 1226/1999 and the said order has been implemented after getting sanction of the President and extended the benefit of Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training OM No.28034/1/88Estt(D) dated 06.12.1989 with effect from 07.02.1997 to the petitioners therein and that the present applicant stands on the same footing as that of the applicants therein and therefore, the applicant is also entitled for the benefit extended to the applicants in O.A. No. 1226/1999. He invited our attention to the Government of India order dated 03.03.2008 filed as Annexure V to the O.A.. We have...

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 10 2009 (TRI)

C. Narasimha Vs. the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasti ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (J) Heard Ms. Anuradha learned counsel for the applicant and Mrs. P. Sarada for Mr. Y. Ravindra learned counsel for the respondents. We have gone through the facts of the case and material papers placed before us. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as a Cleaner in the respondents' organisation in the year 1966 and promoted as Driver in the year 1973. He was selected as Field Publicity Assistant (F.P.A.) on 23.12.1988. It is the case of the applicant that basing on the Vth Pay Commission recommendations, the Assured Career Progression Scheme for Central Government civilian employees in all Ministries/Departments has been introduced through office memorandum No. 35034/1/97-Estt(D) dated 09.08.99. In terms of the said scheme applicant is entitled to get the benefit of the financial upgradation as he has not been given any promotion after he was directly recruited as F.P.A. in the year 1988. Applicant submitted a representation to the respondent...

Tag this Judgment!


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