Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat hyderabad Page 4 of about 520 results (0.480 seconds)

Jul 28 2009 (TRI)

K. Ravinder, S/O. Laxmaiah Vs. Union of India, Rep. by Its Secretary ( ...

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 standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This application is filed aggrieved of not giving posting to the applicant to the category No.12 which is opted by him. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents took preliminary objection stating that the applicant has not put forward his grievance before the authorities concerned giving all the details mentioned in this application and therefore, the applicant has not availed alternative remedy of submitting a representation to the competent authority and hence, this Tribunal cannot entertain this O.A. Learned counsel for the applicant replied contending that the respondents are not entertaining any representation and therefore, the applicant had to straightaway approach this Tribunal. 4. In view of the said submissions, we are of the considered view that this matter can be disposed of, at the admission stage itself, w...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2009 (TRI)

G. Narsing Rao Vs. Union of India Rep. by the General Manager and Othe ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER {As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman } Heard Mr.K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.N.R.Devraj, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This application is filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the revision authority proposing to enhance the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages in the time scale for a period of two years to that of compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that there are several defects in the impugned order passed by the revision authority and even rule quoted therein is not applicable to the applicant. The applicant in his application pleaded the merits of the case. But in our considered view, the revision authority has not yet passed final orders in the revision petition filed by the applicant and unless the final orders are passed in the revision petition, this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this application. The issuance of the show cause notice d...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2009 (TRI)

G. Suguna, W/O. S. Wilson Kumar, Office Superintendent Grade I Vs. Uni ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) When the matter was called for, Ms. Rachana Kumari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel for the applicant sought further time to contact the applicant. 2. As seen from the docket order, as long back as on 26.02.2009, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there was no need to pass any orders in this application in view of the fact that the cadre to which the applicant is seeking promotion is merged with the cadre in which the applicant is already working consequent on the acceptance of the recommendations of the VI Central Pay Commission. On that day, learned counsel for the applicant requested time to consult his client and to consider the implications of the merger. Therefore, the matter was directed to be posted next week under the caption 'for orders'. But somehow the O.A. was not posted till 20.07.2009. On 20.07.2009, learned counsel for the applicant aga...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 28 2009 (TRI)

V.K. Prasad, S/O. Late V.S. Narayana Rao and Others Vs. the Union of I ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. R. Santhanam, Member (Admn)) This application has been filed assailing the letter No. VA/1707/VKP dated 17.8.2006 of the 3rd respondent cancelling the pay fixation made earlier as per the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure O.M. No. 6/1/98-IC dated 31.05.2001 as illegal, arbitrary, bad in law and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: The applicants were working as Foremen of Factory (redesignated as Chargeman I) in the pay scale of Rs.1600-2600 in the Naval Armament Supply Organisation under the control of the 2nd respondent prior to implementation of V Central Pay Commission recommendations which came into effect from 1.1.96. On implementation of the V CPC recommendations, the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 was awarded to the applicants and pay was fixed at Rs.6500 with effect from 1.1.96 by the 3rd respondent. Subsequently, higher pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 was award...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2009 (TRI)

Smt. Laxmibai, W/O. Late Babu Maruthy Vs. the General Manager, S.C. Ra ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Juld.) ) Heard Mr. J.M. Naidu, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V. Rajeswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondent. 2. It is the case of the applicant that her husband late Sri Babu Maruthy was appointed in the respondents organization under LF/ Lalaguda. He worked as Mechanical Muccadam in the scale of Rs.260-400 with ticket No. 3068. The applicant submits that her husband expired while in service on 26.11.1984. She made several representations to the Divisional Railway Manager for settlement of the benefits to which she is entitled. Representation dated 08.08.2003 is enclosed as Annexure I at page 6 of the O.A. In the said representation, she has made a mention of PF Account No.03616952 and the pay scale as on the death of the husband was Rs.290/-. I find from the material papers enclosed along with O.A., on 20.02.2005 the DRM/HYB/SC informed the applicant that her representation has been examined and it was f...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2009 (TRI)

G.M.Kezia Rani, W/O T.Vijayakumar Vs. the Divisional Railway Manager, ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER : (As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice.P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman) Heard the learned Counsel Mr.P.S.Ramachandra Murthy for the Applicant and the learned Standing Counsel Mr.M.C.Jacob on behalf of the Respondents. 2. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that there is a vacancy at Giddalur and that as the daughter of the applicant has been studying 10th Class, and it is the turning point for any student, and her husband is working at Kurnool, the applicant may atleast be posted at Giddalur, in case it is not possible to continue her at Nandyal. However, it is for the applicant to submit such a representation before the concerned authorities immediately and on submitting such representation, the respondents may consider and dispose of the same taking into consideration about the education of the daughter of the applicant. 3. The applicant shall make representation within two days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and the respondents shall dispose of the sa...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 24 2009 (TRI)

P.Ajay Kumar Vs. Joint Commissioner (Pandv) of Customs and Central Exc ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER {As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman } Heard Mr.N.Vijay, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.G.Jayaprakash Babu, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This application is filed challenging the charge memo dated 22.06.2009 issued by the 1st respondent who is the Joint Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad - I Commissionerate. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows : The applicant is working as Inspector of Central Excise. On 22.06.2006 he was served with a charge memo under minor penalty proceedings. The applicant submitted his defence statement, but no final orders were passed. But in the meantime the applicant approached this Tribunal in April 2009 by filing OASR.849/2009. This Tribunal did not admit the application and advised the applicant to submit a representation raising the contentions raised in the application sought to be filed before this Tribunal. Accordingly the applicant submitted a represent...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2009 (TRI)

Shri N. Ramanjaneyulu Vs. the Chief Signal and Telecommunications Engi ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(P. Lakshmana Reddy, VC) This application is filed aggrieved of non-promotion of the applicant as Section Engineer (Telecom) in the pay scale of Rs.6500 - 10500. 2. The relevant facts as set out in the application in brief are as follows: The applicant is working as Junior Engineer-I in the office of the Section Engineer/ Tele/ Dornakal, South Central Railway. The respondents conducted selections for the post of Section Engineer in the year 2003 and 2006 and on both the occasions the applicant appeared for the same and passed in the written examination. But, he could not be promoted for want of vacancies. In the year 2006, though he passed in the examination, his name did not appear in the panel for the reason that his service record in the Sr. DPO's office was not traceable. While so, the respondents issued another notification dated 31.7.2007 calling for the selections for 32 posts of Section Engineers. The applicant's name was at Serial No.2 in the seniority list. He appeared for th...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2009 (TRI)

M.Yadagiri, S/O M.Jangaiah and Others Vs. the Commander, Works Enginee ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER : (As per Hon'ble Mr.Justice.P.Lakshmana Reddy, Vice Chairman) As the issue involved in all these three OAs is common, we propose to dispose of all these three OAs by a common order. 2. The short question that arises for consideration in all these three OAs is whether the Head of the Department is empowered to re-open the disciplinary proceedings, which were already concluded exonerating the applicants/employees from the charge framed against them in duly conducted disciplinary proceedings, after a lapse of 8 years. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicant in O.A.No.123/2008 was issued with a charge memo on 14.3.1995 alleging that he, at the time of recruitment, produced bogus employment registration card, which is not tallying with the documents held by the Employment Exchange. Due inquiry was conducted. The inquiry officer found guilty of the charge framed against the applicant and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary au...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 23 2009 (TRI)

P. Sri Devi Naidu, W/O. Sri P. Gopi Naidu Vs. Union of India, Rep. by ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (Juld.) ) Heard Mr. Siva, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. V. Rajeswara Rao, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 2. The applicant who is working as Nursing Sister under Sr. Divisional Medical Officer, was transferred from Health Unit, Vizianagaram to Divisional Hospital, Visakhapatnam in her existing capacity, grade and pay vide order dated 26.02.2009, copy of which is enclosed as Annexure 9 at page 22 of the O.A. The applicant submitted a representation on 10.03.2009 to the Chief Medical Superintendent, East Coast Railway, Visakhapatnam, 5th respondent herein, requesting for cancellation / abeyance of her transfer order for a period of three months duly giving reasons for the same, copy of which is enclosed at page 24 and 25 as Annexure 11 of the O.A. Initially, the applicant approached the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 111/2009 and an interim order was passed by the Tribunal to keep the trans...

Tag this Judgment!


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