Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat hyderabad Page 6 of about 520 results (0.141 seconds)

Jul 16 2009 (TRI)

Gulam Jeelani, S/O Gulam Khaza Vs. the Chief Post Master General, Depa ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER : ( As per Hon'ble Mrs.Bharati Ray, Member (J) ) Heard Mr.B.Shiva Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant. 2. The learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents is not present. Rejoinder was filed on 28.11.2008. Since this is a matter of 2008, the same is taken up under Rule 16 (1) of CAT (Procedure) Rules. 3. It is the case of the applicant that he was appointed as Mailman Group-D in Sorting Division, Hyderabad, in the year 1976. He was promoted as Head Mailman in the Department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant by issuing charge memo dated 25.1.2006 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, for the following charges: "Sri Gulam Jeelani, HMM HRO, Hyderabad Air Unit, has continuously un-unauthorizedly absented from duty for 65 days from 23.07.2005 to 25.09.2005 without any intimation and prior sanction of leave, violating the provisions of Rule 63 and 162 of Postal Manual Volume-III and thus, he failed to maintain devotion to duty and acted in ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 16 2009 (TRI)

M. Sai Shankar Vs. Union of India, Rep. by the General Manager and Oth ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

(Per Hon'ble Mrs. Bharati Ray, Member (J) This application has been filed by the applicant seeking for the following relief : To call for the records pertaining to Memorandum No. B.P.676/III/ Rg/I/Vol.IX dated 11/13.04.2007 and set aside same as illegal and direct the official respondents to declare the applicant as belonging to Vijayawada division in accordance with the Inter Divisional Mutual transfer order S.O.O.No. 22/ELR/ 3/2006 dated 20.03.2006 and Office Order No. Mech/BG/2S/2006 dated 12-04- 2006 and fix his seniority in the Driver (Goods) cadre of Vijayawada division as per the rules relating to mutual transfer and grant all consequential benefits including fixation of seniority. 2. The applicant was appointed as apprentice Diesel/Electrical Assistant in scale Rs.3050-4590 in Secunderabad Division of South Central Railway on 27.04.1994 and progressed further to the post of Goods Driver in scale of Rs.5000-8000 RS(RP). The applicant while working as Goods Driver had sought Inte...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 15 2009 (TRI)

Dr. A.G.K. Murthy Vs. the Director General, Indian Council of Agricult ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.) The present OA has been filed by the applicant to claim promotion as Principal Scientist with effect from 11.7.1991 instead of 27.7.1999 as granted to him vide order F. No.2-34/2003-AU, dated 6.7.2004 by the respondents. The applicant has claimed that the respondents have not followed Rule 19(4) of Indian Council of Agricultural Research Scientific Service Rules. 2. The applicant was initially appointed as Research Assistant on 5.10.1967 at Central Tobacco Research Institute, Rajahmundry under the administrative control of Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi. Later on, when the agricultural research service came into existence, the applicant was inducted to Agricultural Research Service as Scientist S-0 in the Agricultural Chemistry faculty. The applicant got merit promotion as Scientist S-I in the scale of Rs.700-1300 and subsequently got merit promotion to the position as Senior Scientist (S-2) in the scale Rs.1100-1600. During the IV...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

Shri S. Gurumurthy Vs. Union of India Represented by the General Manag ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

This application is filed by a Driver (Goods) in Railways challenging the punishment order dated 18.4.2007 whereunder he was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for 35 months. 2. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: While the applicant was working as Driver (Goods) at Kazipet, on 23.8.2006, he was rostered to work Train No. BCN with loco No. 23929+906 Ex. Kazipet. It was a Goods Train having many destinations. The applicant worked the train upto Potkapalle station from Kazipet and only when he came to know that the destination of the train was Pandar Pavani, as the applicant had no valid road learning (LR) certificates to work the train in Pandar Pavani section, he immediately informed the Section Controller through the Deputy Station Superintendent, Kolnur Station. Further, he directly conveyed to the Section Controller on duty at Ramagundam. At Manikgarh, the applicant was instructed by the Traction Loco Controller to work the train upto Pandar Pavani station desp...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

Shri K.Venkateswara Rao Vs. Union of India Rep. by the Comptroller and ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.) The present OA has been filed by the applicant against imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement from service. 2. The facts as stated in the OA are that the applicant was appointed as Clerk under Sports Quota, he being a Chess Player, on 31.12.1987. He was promoted as Auditor in 1990 and as Senior Auditor in 1993. The applicant had applied for Earned Leave from 29.7.2002 to 16.8.2002, for attending to his ailing mother as well as wife. The said leave was extended by him from 17.8.2002 to 23.8.2002. Further, he had applied for Half Pay Leave from 24.8.2002 to 30.8.2002 and Extraordinary Leave from 31.8.2002 to 25.9.2002. Again the applicant had extended the Extraordinary leave from 26.9.2002 to 4.11.2003 for which leave applications and telegrams were sent to his Supervisor from time to time. The applicant states that the above said leave has been duly recommended by his Supervisor. However, the 4th respondent had kept them pending without sancti...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

P. Sivaiah and Others Vs. the Assistant Engineer-cum- Estate Manager a ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. M. V. Krishna Mohan, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This application is filed challenging the revision of water charges being collected from the occupants of the residential quarters provided to the applicants who are central government servants. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: All the applicants are the central government servants and they are provided with government accommodation at GPRA Quarters at Gachibowli, Hyderabad. They are staying in different types of quarters viz., Type I, II, and III. The rent, water charges and other related charges are deducted from their salaries. The applicants were paying the water charges @ Rs.8/-, Rs.10/- and Rs.12/- per month respectively according to the type of quarter they are living in. While so, it is alleged that the 1st respondent without giving any n...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

A.Anjaneyulu, S/O Late Raghavayya Vs. the Union of India, Rep., by Its ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER : ( As per Hon'ble Mrs.Bharati Ray, Member (J) ) Heard Mr.P.Venkatarama Sarma representing Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar, the learned Counsel for the Applicant and Mr.A.Rajendra Babu, the learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The applicant while working as Chargeman Grade-II at Visakhapatnam was empanelled for promotion to Chargeman Grade-I, vide proceedings dated 21.8.2008. The willingness or otherwise for promotion from Chargeman Grade-II was called for. The applicant expressed his unwillingness when he was posted to Port Blair by letter dated 25.8.2008. He also gave a declaration on 16.10.2008 to the effect that he is not willing to accept promotion/transfer to the post of Chargeman Grade-I at Naval Ship Repair Yard (NSRY), Port Blair, notified, vide Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, letter dated 6.10.2008. However, while doing so, the applicant had understood that he would forfeit his claim for promotion and seniority in the Chargeman Grade-II. The 4th respondent rejected ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

Shri T. Sasidhran Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

SHRI HRIDAY NARAIN, MEMBER (ADMN.) This present OA has been filed challenging the impugned letter No.LGDS/P.588/MW/Art/E2, dated 24.7.2007 of the 2nd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, against Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also as violative of principles of natural justice. 2. The applicant was initially recruited as CMR Khalasi in scale Rs.196-232 on 27.4.1978 under BRI/SC against 25% direct quota of Skilled Artisan. Later he was posted as Erecter GRI in scale Rs.196-232 on 7.7.1980 in Engineering Department, Lalaguda Workshop. He was confirmed in this scale with effect from 1.1.1981. The applicant worked upto 28.2.1984 in the said post and was promoted as Jeep Driver on 9.2.1984 in scale Rs.260-350 on ad hoc basis. Further, he was promoted as Khalasi Helper in scale Rs.260-350 (RS) on 28.2.1984. He worked upto 10.9.1984 in this grade and posted as Motor Driver on 11.9.1984 in scale Rs.260-400 - Rs.950-1500 (RS) and worked upto 1.9.1986. He was transferred to CME ...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

M. Srinivasulu and Others Vs. the Assistant Engineer-cum-estate Manage ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

ORAL ORDER (As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard Mr. R. Yogender Singh, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned senior standing counsel for the respondents. 2. This application is filed challenging the revision of water charges being collected from the occupants of the residential quarters provided to the applicants who are central government servants. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: All the applicants are the central government servants and they are provided with government accommodation at GPRA Quarters at Gachibowli, Hyderabad. They are staying in different types of quarters viz., Type I, II, and III. The rent, water charges and other related charges are deducted from their salaries. The applicants were paying the water charges @ Rs.8/-, Rs.10/- and Rs.12/- per month respectively according to the type of quarter they are living in. While so, it is alleged that the 1st respondent without giving any not...

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 14 2009 (TRI)

R. Appalakonda, Postal Assistant Vs. the Superintendent of Post Office ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad

P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard MS.S. Anuradha, learned counsel for Mr. Ch. Ravinder, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, learned Senior standing counsel for the respondents, who took notice on their behalf. 2. This application is filed challenging the punishment of not only of withholding of one increment for a period of three months without cumulative effect, but also recovery of an amount of Rs.1,34,400/- in 48 equal installments @ Rs.2800/- per month. 3. The relevant facts in brief are as follows: The applicant who belongs to ST community got the job of Postal Assistant and was appointed as such in Anakapalle Division in 1999. When he was working as Leger PA at Chodavaram HO, the Superintendent of Post Offices, Anakapalle issued a charge sheet to him under Rule 16 on 27.04.2007 alleging that the Sub-Postmaster of A. Koduru SO fraudulently closed two TD accounts and the applicant failed to verify the specimen signature of the depositor at head...

Tag this Judgment!


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