Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat patna Page 3 of about 41 results (0.169 seconds)

Apr 18 2000 (TRI)

S.A. Alam Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. The applicant who retired from railway service on 30.11.1993, when he was holding the post of P.O./RCT/Patna (full form of designation not given), is challenging the initiation of departmental inquiry against him vide memo dated 29.11.1993, relating to awards of contracts by him during 1988 to 1991, when he was senior DCS, Katihar.2. It is stated in the written statement filed on behalf of the respondents that the impugned charge sheet/memo was sought to be served on him on 30.11.1993, which was the day of his retirement, but he refused to accept it, and it was published on the notice board. Now one preliminary issue has to be decided first.3. Shri M.M.P. Sinha, the learned Counsel for the applicant argued that the charge sheet cannot be treated as having been served while the applicant was still in service. He stated that a retiring government servant normally hands over his charge finally at noon of the day of his retirement, and the after-noon is not considered to be a part of t...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 13 2000 (TRI)

Durga Prasad Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

(i) That the respondents may be directed to issue ex post facto sanction letter for the treatment of the eye of the applicant, namely removal of cataract and intra ocular implant and also defray expenses over treatment on submission of bill within a specified period; (ii) That the respondents may also be directed to issue ex post facto sanction for an attendant who accompanied the applicant. (iii) That the respondents may be directed to reimburse railway fare of the applicant and his attendant from Patna to Madras and back." 2. The applicant retired as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.3.88. He was covered under Central Government Health Scheme as at Annexure-A/1 read with Annexure-A/2. He suffered from serious heart ailment and was treated in All India Institute of Medical Science, Bombay Hospital, Bombay and at Madras Appolo Hospital. He was also defrayed expenses for treatment at those places. It is stated that he suffered from Votreous Haemmorage in his right eye and was ...

Tag this Judgment!

Apr 07 2000 (TRI)

Nag Deo Singh Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. Lakshman Jha, Member (J)--In this application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act (for short, A.T. Act) 1985 the applicant has prayed for reliefs of quashing Annexure-A/11, the order of removal from service with effect from 10.6.91 passed by the disciplinary authority and Annexure-A/13, the order of the appellate authority dated 2.8.91, confirming the order of removal as passed by the disciplinary authority with all consequential benefits.2. The applicant was a Driver of Goods Train on Diesel Engine No. 18865 WDM (2) on 25.6.90. It collided in the rear of one UP GGC Passenger Train at Magra Railway Station on 25.6.90 on 14.54 hours. As a result of the accident, 22 passengers were killed and 62 passengers were injured. The engine worth Rs. 1,88,10,450 (approximately) was damaged.The applicant was served with Articles of charges which are reproduced as hereunder:- Shri Nagdeo Singh (Delinquent-applicant) while functioning as Driver 8655 Up P.M. during the period of 2...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 07 2000 (TRI)

Sudhir Mahto and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. We have heard all the 25 OAs on the limited question of their admissibility for adjudication by the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short A.T. Act, 1985). This order will govern all the 25 OAs, as the law points on that limited question are common to all of them. In other words, we are to decide as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain for adjudication the 25 OAs which have been filed by the casual labourers of the Railways and the Telecom Department, which have been declared as industries. We will be passing separate orders in each OA, either for issue of notice before admission or for disposal at the stage of admission.2. We already have two orders delivered by two Division Benches of this Tribunal, one on 3.6.99 in OA 462/98 and 12 other OAs by both of us, and the other on 22.8.99 in OA 227 99 to which one of us, viz. Mr.Justice S. Narayan, V.C. (J) was party with Shri L.R.K. Prasad Member (A). The former was the more preliminary decisio...

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 04 2000 (TRI)

Sunil Kumar and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. Both the aforesaid O.As. relate to the appointment on the post of EDBPM, Ajaypur EDBO in account with Asta, S.O. in Nalanda Postal Division, Biharsharif. The applicant of O. A. No. 194/94, Sunil Kumar, is Respondent No. 6 in O. A. No. 505/94 and the applicant of O.A. No.505/94, Mrs. Sanju Sinha, is Respondent No, 6 in O.A. No. 194/94. They are rival claimants for the aforesaid post, and common material, questions of law and facts are involved in both the OAs. Hence, they are taken up together and decided by this common order.2. The Superintendent of Post Offices, Nalanda Division at Biharsharif (Respondent No. 4) made a requisition with the employment exchange, Biharsharif, District Nalanda for sponsoring the names of eligible candidates as per the instructions laid down in P&T recruitment order vide letter dated 31.5.93 as at Annexure-A/1. The last date for submissions of the applications was 29.6.93. The Director General, Department of Posts, New Delhi, issued a letter on 12....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 01 2000 (TRI)

Param Jit Kaur Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and anr.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. Ms. Paramjit Kaur has filed this petition feeling aggrieved by an order dated 3.4.1992 vide which her representation for counting of her service rendered as LDC on adhoc basis for seniority and other purposes w.e.f 21.12.1882 has been rejected. She pleads that she was appointed as LDC through Annexure A-2. She is possessed of qualification of graduation. Her appointment was made after her name was sponsored through employment exchange and it was made by Regional Labour Commissioner. She was confirmed as LDC vide orders dated 12.4.1990 w.e.f 4.4.1990 through Annexure A-3. Pleads that appointments to the post of LDCs are made through Staff Selection Commission. With the consent of the SSC, respondent department had conducted a special qualifying examination limited to adhoc employees in July, 1985 in which she had appeared and qualified. After being declared successful, she was regularised as a clerk w.e.f. 1,4,1.1986.There has been no break in her'service since 1982 to the date of r...

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 14 2000 (TRI)

Shri D. Roy Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. The applicant, being an Ex-Teacher of the Eastern Railway, Danapur, is actually aggrieved of non-settlement of the retiral benefits, in finality, even after his retirement on superannuation on 31st August, 1989, and accordingly, he has sought for reliefs by way of direction to the respondents in following terms : (b) To release his DCRG along with interest from the date of withholding till the same is paid to him; (c) To pay him interest on the P.P. deductions from 1.9.1989to 11.7.1991 which has not been given to him together with interest for delayed payment; (d) To pay him notional compensation for the loss that he has suffered due to denial of post retirement benefits for a period of five years. (e) To pay him his transfer and packing allowances on superannuation as permissible according to the rules.2. Significantly, the applicant has nowhere quantified the provisional payment already made and the amount, together with the interest, which still remained to be settled. Correspon...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 29 1999 (TRI)

C.K. Pandey Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

(i) To quash and set aside dismissal order No. SS/SPs/1/Part-I/C.K. Pandey dated 25.11.1991 (Annexure A/1). (ii) To quash and set aside the revisional order dated 14.12.1998 passed by respondent No. 1 and communicated by respondent no. 3 through letter dated 16.12.1998 as at Annexure-A/2. (iii) The respondent authorities be directed to reinstate the applicant to his original post. (iv) The respondents be directed to treat the entire period of suspension and dismissal from service as on duty for all purposes along with consequential benefits and 25% interest on pay and arrears.2. In brief, the case of the applicant is that while working as Office Superintendent Grade II (OS Grade II and while on duty on 15.11.1991 and 16.11.1991, an F.I.R. (Annexure-A/4) was lodged against him in GRP, Muzaffarpur on the alleged allegation that the applicant abused and assaulted on Shri Ajay Kumar, ASTE/Barauni Junction, N.E. Railway at about 11 A.M. on 15.11.1991. The F.I.R. was tried under Sections 14...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1999 (TRI)

Water Resources Survey Employees Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. Heard learned counsel appearing on the either side. The applicant No. 1 in this case is Water Resources Survey Employees Union, having 156 members including the applicant No. 2. The members are Seasonal Khalasi employed in Central Water Commission, (CWC), Middle Ganga Division-IV Patna. The applicants seek direction upon the respondents i.e. the authority concerned of the CWC to employ all the members of the Union from 1.10.1999 to 30.10.1999 i.e. for a period beyond three and half months during the current monsoon season. There is an additional prayer also to direct the respondents to employ all those members of the Union year to year for a period of 4 1/2 months even in future.2. The instant case centres around the orders of appointment dated 5.6.1999 in the nature of Annexure-1 issued to each and every member of the Union. Be it recorded here that this order of appointment speaks of engaging the applicants (members) on the post of Seasonal Khalasi for a limited period from 15th ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 13 1999 (TRI)

Lakshmi Safi Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Patna

1. Whereas, the applicant and the respondent No. 6, both, alongwith three others, were candidates sponsored by the concerned Employment Exchange to the selection for appointment on the post of EDDA-cum-EDMC, Ranna EDBO in Darbhanga Postal Division, it was the respondent No. 6 who was appointed by the postal Authority i.e, the respondent No. 5, as per letter dated, 11th November, 1993, and the candidature of the applicant was turned down on the ground that there was a criminal case then pending against him. The applicant has, therefore, impugned the letter of appointment dated, 11th November, 1993, on the ground of its being illegal and arbitrary and has, simultaneously, prayed for a direction upon the official respondents to consider his case for appointment to the post.2. On factual score, there was no controversy at all that, left to the educational qualification, it was the applicant, who had secured better marks as compared to the respondent No. 6 in Matriculation standard or equi...

Tag this Judgment!


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