Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat hyderabad Page 10 of about 520 results (0.191 seconds)

Jun 17 2009 (TRI)

Ahmed Ali Khan Vs. the Postmaster General, Vijayawada and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman) 1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.S.Ramakrishna Rao for the Applicant and the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu, who took notice on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that he has put in 29 years of service as GDS and that as none of his seniors opted to work as Substitute Postman, he has been posted as Substitute Postman at Rudrampur SO, with effect from 17.11.2007, vide memo dated 14.11.2007 and later transferred to Kothagudem Collieries HO with effect from 4.10.2008 and since then he has been working there and while so, the respondents are contemplating to replace him by his juniors as Substitute Postman. He further submitted that willingness letters were called for from his juniors, and therefore, the applicant had to approach this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that no orders have been passed appointing any junior in place of the a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 17 2009 (TRI)

Sk. Khaleelmiya Vs. the Postmaster General, Vijayawada and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman) 1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.S.Ramakrishna Rao for the Applicant and the learned Sr. Central Govt. Standing Counsel Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu, who took notice on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that he has put in 30 years of service as GDS and that as none of his seniors opted to work as Substitute Postman, he has been posted as Substitute Postman at Kothagudem Collieries Head Post Office, with effect from 1.10.2007, vide memo dated 28.09.2007 and the applicant joined the said post with effect from 4.10.2007, and since then he has been working there. While so, the respondents are contemplating to replace him by his juniors as Substitute Postman. He further submitted that willingness letters were called for from his juniors, and therefore, the applicant had to approach this Tribunal. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that no orders have been passed appointing any junior in plac...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2009 (TRI)

Sri A.Balakrishna Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Chief Postmaster General ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER: {As per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Judl.)} Heard Mr. Krishna Devan, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondents. This application has been filed questioning the order No.ST-IV/SUS/Review/AB, dated 25.06.2008 passed by the second respondent under Rule 19 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. 2.The applicant has sought for the following relief : “To set aside the order No.ST-IV/SUS/Review/AB, dated 25.06.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent by declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, without application of mind, void being excess of jurisdiction and over riding the higher authority including this Hon'ble Court, in violation of Principles of natural justice being violation of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to act in accordance with the directions by the 1st respondent in the order dated 24.06.2008.” 3.The respondents have filed counter reply contesting the OA on 11.09.2008. No rejoinder h...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2009 (TRI)

B. Mohan Rao Vs. the Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary, Ministry o ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Judl.)) 1. Heard Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for applicant and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The applicant is working in the respondents organization at Hyderabad as Asst. Labour Commissioner (Central) since June 2005 and he will be completing his present tenure at Hyderabad by June 2009 and therefore, he submitted a representation dated 30.12.2008 to the Joint Secretary and Cadre Controlling Authority, CLS-I Section, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi, copy of which is enclosed to the O.A. at page 7 as Annexure I, requesting for his retention and continuation in the present posting at Hyderabad for the remaining period of his service on the following grounds: “1. That I have a little over one year of Govt. service left for retirement on attaining the age of superannuation in August, 2010. 2. That my eldest daughter is pursuing her PG Degree in med...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 2009 (TRI)

Shri Rajendra Singh Vs. Union of India Represented by the Secretary to ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(PER HON'BLE SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.) 1. The present OA has been filed against the non promotion of the applicant on par with the other officers on the administration side of the organisation. The prayer made in the OA is as under:- “a) call for the records relating to and connected with Order No. Office Order No.HQ:ADMN:A.20(5)-3, dated 26.9.2005 of the 2nd respondent and quash or set aside the same holding it as arbitrary, illegal and also violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India; b) direct the respondents to treat the applicant to have been promoted on and from 21.4.2005, the date on which the panel has been prepared or at least from 1.5.2005, the date on which the same has been acted upon; c) consequent upon such a quashing and direction, direct the respondents to compute and release all the benefits including seniority; monetary benefits and consequential revision of the terminal benefits and pension and release the same together with interest a...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 12 2009 (TRI)

Sri Vanapalli Venkata Vijay and Others Vs. the Divisional Railway Mana ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(As per Hon'ble Mr.R.Santhanam, Member (A)) 1. This application has been filed assailing the inaction of the respondents in not considering and disposing of the representations dated 11.4.2007, 24.5.2007 and 6.7.2005 of the applicants requesting the respondents to consider their case for up gradation from Technician Grade-III to Grade-II and grant monetary benefits on par with the SC and ST candidates of their batch, who were given promotions on up gradation while restructuring the cadres contrary to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. V.K.Sirothia as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. 2. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the law is now well settled following the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.6934 to 6946/2005 in the case of Union of India Vs. Pushpa Rani and Others that reservation is applicable to restructured vacancies also...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 2009 (TRI)

M.V. Srinivasa Rao Vs. South Central Railway, Rep., by General Manager ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman ) 1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.N.Krishna Murthy for the Applicant and the learned Standing Counsel Mr.V.Rajeswara Rao, who took notice on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The grievance of the applicant is that though he did not make any application requesting for allotment of a Railway quarter, he has been allotted inspite of his representation that he does not require the quarter, and that neither to his junior nor to his senior such an offer was made and that though the applicant is not inclined to take the quarter, he is being forced to occupy the quarters. The further grievance of the applicant is that on the very same day on which notice of allotment is served, he submitted a representation requesting for cancellation of the allotment, but no reply has been given. 3. As admittedly, the representation of the applicant is pending with the respondents, we consider that this matter can be disposed of at the admission stage ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 10 2009 (TRI)

V. Sivarama Krishnaiah and Another Vs. the General Manager, Guntur and ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman) 1. Heard the learned Counsel Mr.K.Venkateswara Rao for the Applicants and the learned Standing Counsel Mr.M.C.Jacob, who took notice on behalf of the Respondents. 2. This application is filed on behalf of the two applicants challenging their transfer from Guntur to Kondrupadu and Pulladigunta respectively. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicants 1 and 2 are working in Guntur Division as Telephone Mechanics in Guntur Exchange viz., urban area, and for deployment transfers to rural areas, the applicants were identified for transfer and they were transferred from Guntur to Kondrupadu and Pulladigunta respectively. The grievance of the applicants is that the first applicant crossed 56 years by 2.5.2009 and the second applicant crossed 56 years by 6.4.2009 and that the counselling was conducted on 2.6.2009 and that by the date of counselling both of them crossed 56 years, and therefore, they are exempted fro...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2009 (TRI)

M.V. Ratna Rao Vs. the Senior Divisional Operating Manager, Vijayawada ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

{As per Hon'ble Mrs.Bharati Ray, Member (Judl.)} 1. Heard Ms.Anuradha representing Mr.G.V.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.V.Rajeswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents. We have gone through the facts of the case, pleadings and material available on record. 2. The applicant while working as Assistant Station Master, Pallevada, was issued with a charge sheet alleging that he deserted the station and caused detention to a train for 30 minutes. An enquiry was conducted and the said disciplinary proceedings were ended with a penalty of reduction of grade from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.4500-7000 for a period of one year with recurring nature. The applicant preferred an appeal against the said penalty to the Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order the applicant approached this Tribunal earlier in OA.1437/2001which was disposed of vide order dated 10.11.2004, a copy of which is enclosed by the applicant as Annexure - ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 08 2009 (TRI)

V. Satyanarayana Vs. the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Secun ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) 1. Heard Mr. S. Ramakrishna Rao for Mr. K.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel for applicant and Mrs. A.P. Lakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. 2. This application is filed seeking declaration to the effect that the proposed promotion to the 5th respondent from Technician Grade I to Master Craftsman as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to rules and also seeking a direction to promote the applicant to the post of Carpenter MCM with retrospective effect in the interests of justice. 3. Relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicant joined as Carpenter in the year 1972 on casual basis and later he was regularised in the year 1976. Later, he was promoted as Carpenter Grade III, Grade II and then to Grade I and he has become eligible for promotion to Carpenter MCM basing on the seniority. Therefore, the applicant claims that he is entitled to be considered for the vacancy to which the respondents proposed to promot...

Tag this Judgment!


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