Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal cat principal bench new delhi Page 22 of about 219 results (0.161 seconds)

Oct 01 2012 (TRI)

Ms. Seema Pathak and Others Vs. Govt. of Nct Delhi Through the Chief S ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(ORAL) Shri G George Paracken: The applicants had earlier approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 2883/2012. However, the applicants counsel wanted to withdraw it to pursue the grievance of the applicant departmentally. His request was allowed and the OA was disposed of as withdrawn, vide order dated 31.08.2012. It was also stated in the said order that for any subsisting grievance, the applicants could approach this Tribunal as per law. 2. Thereafter, the applicants have made the identical Annexure A-8 representation dated 05.09.2012 followed by the reminder dated 18.09.2012. According to them, later on they came to know about the office order dated 11.07.2012 wherein it has been stated that the extension of their contract was only till 31.08.2012 and releasing of their salary has been made subject to their signing of the contract. The learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Yogesh Sharma has also invited our attention to the blank contract agreement form placed as Annexure A-2 of this ...

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 01 2012 (TRI)

Shri Shiv Kumar Kaushik Vs. P.K. Tripathi, Chief Secretary and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(ORAL) G. George Paracken, Member (J) This Contempt Petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal in OA No.2166/2011 dated 03.01.2012. 2. Shri Surendra Kumar, Deputy Education Officer, representing the Department assures that he will examine the case and all the documents mentioned in Annexure-C2 letter dated 16.2.2012 will be supplied to the applicant, if they are included in the list of documents already furnished to him.3. In view of the aforesaid assurance of Shri Surendra Kumar, this Contempt Petition is closed. Notices issued to the alleged contemnors are discharged. No costs....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2012 (TRI)

Shri R.P.S. Panwar Vs. Union of India, Through Director (Estt), Depart ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Through the instant Original Application, Shri R.P.S. Panwar - a retired ITS Officer, the applicant herein, is seeking the following main relief(s):- 8.03.That (Annexure A-1, A-2, A-3 and to the extent Annexure A-4 is applicable in respect of provisional pension and coming in the way of relief to applicant) be kindly declared as void abinitio and be aside; it be kindly also held that Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 acted without authority of law and without jurisdiction and in bad faith only by ignoring the staring law, rules and procedure as well as duty; 8.04.That applicant be kindly granted the revision as per 6th CPC and accordingly the leave encashment and other retiral dues, provisional pension, excepting Gratuity with interest @ 12% per annum from date of their respect accruals. The prayer for release of deposits with interest in favour of Applicant under the CGEG Insurance Scheme is respectfully made at paragraph 9 below. 2. Brief facts of the cas...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 25 2012 (TRI)

Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A): Dr. V. Bhuvaneswari, presently working as Professor, Radio-diagnosis in Lady Harding Medical College (LHMC), New Delhi, the applicant in the present Original Application, has moved MA No. 2424/2012 seeking certain amendments to the prayer in the OA viz. to direct the first and second respondents to allow the applicant to exercise her option as per the JIPMER (Amendment) Act, 2011. She has also sought direction of the Tribunal to initiate disciplinary action against the officers who have caused prejudice to her in rejecting her request for exercising fresh option to return back to the JIPMER. 2. Notice was issued to the respondents on the said MA and the reply affidavit has been filed on 17.12.2011 wherein the respondents submitted that the said amendment to the prayer clause is not maintainable and the MA deserves to be dismissed. 3. We have considered the applicants claim in the MA as to the amendment to the relief clause and other portions of the...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2012 (TRI)

Shri Ram Niwas and Another Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Mini ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Veena Chhotray: The applicants are working as Civilian Motor Drivers in the Central Ordinance Depot, Delhi Cantt. under the Ministry of Defence. Through this OA, they are challenging the action of the respondents in withdrawing a higher pay scale granted to them since the year 1999/97 along with orders for recovery of excess amount allegedly paid to them. The impugned order dated 30.11.2011 is under challenge. This is the second round of litigation. 2. The OA seeks the following reliefs:- a) quash and set aside the impugned Central Ordinance Depot letter No.3531/Docus/CMD/Estt/N1 dated 30-11-2011 (Colly) and directions to Respondents not to reduce the salary. b) declare the action of the respondents in recovering the amount from the salary of applicants illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law and directions to refund the amount already deducted. c) pass such other or further order as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2012 (TRI)

Mithilesh Kumar and Others Vs. Staff Selection Commission, Through Its ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

Dr. Veena Chhotray: As the main issue involved in all these OAs is identical, they are being disposed by this common order. The common issue of law raised for our adjudication is the legal sustainability of non-consideration of candidature as an OBC on the ground of the Caste Certificate, in the prescribed format, not being submitted within the cut off date, in contravention of the conditions stipulated in the Advertisement Notification. To be even more specific, the issue centres around the non-creamy layer certificate not being within the prescribed time limit of the preceding 3 years of the cut off date. 2. The applicant in the OA No.3985/2010 is represented by Shri R.K. Sharma and the applicants in OA Nos. 3244/2011 and 3245/2011 by Shri Subhash Mohanty. The respondents counsel in all these OAs is Shri S.M. Arif. We have given detailed hearing to the learned counsels on both the sides and also carefully considered the material on record. 3. The claims in all these OAs have arisen o...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 24 2012 (TRI)

Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Defence and Another Vs. A ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

(ORAL) : MA No.2496/2012 This MA is filed for condonation of delay in filing the review application. For the reasons given in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of some days in filing the RA is condoned. RA No.269/2012 2. The present review application has been moved by the respondents in OA No.1693/2012 seeking to recall the order dated 17.05.2012 passed in the aforesaid OA. The grounds taken by the review applicants are mainly based on the following averments: the original applicant has not come to the Tribunal with clean hands as certain material facts relevant for adjudication of the case has been concealed and not brought to the notice of the Tribunal while passing the order dated 17.05.2012. 3. Notice in the RA was issued to the original applicant on 13.09.2012. It is noted that service is complete. Despite the completion of service, none has appeared on behalf of the review respondents. However, Shri R. N. Singh, Senior Central Government counsel for the review appl...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 2012 (TRI)

Raj Kumar Jha and Others Vs. Union of India, Through Secretary, Minist ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

OA Nos. 2135/2012, 2136/2012 and 2137/2012 filed by applicants questioning the order dated 25.06.2012 whereby they were transferred from NCT of Delhi to DDandDHI, AandNI and Lakshadweep were disposed of in terms of order dated 3.07.2012 with a direction that the representation, if any, preferred by applicants within one week would be decided by respondents expeditiously. Respondents were also directed not to give effect to the transfer order qua the applicants till disposal of said representations. Pursuant to said order, applicants made separate representations dated 9.07.2012 raising the common plea and praying for cancellation of their transfer ordered in terms of order No.14020/2/2011-UTS-II (Part file) dated 25.06.2012. The representations were addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. Relying upon the guideline for transfer of posting of DANIPS officer, rules 12 and 13 of DANIPS Rules, 2003 and letter dated 23.06.2012 of DD and DNH administration ...

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 14 2012 (TRI)

Gurbachan Singh Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Principal Bench New Delhi

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs: (i) quash and set aside the impugned transfer order dated 25.6.2012 (A-1) to the extent the applicant has been transferred out at the verge of retirement. (ii) quash and set aside the order dated 5th July, 2012. (iii) declare the action of respondents in transferring the applicant at hard station as illegal and arbitrary. (iv) allow the OA with exemplary cost. 2. This is a matter of transfer from Delhi to Lakshadweep vide impugned orders dated 25.06.2012 whereby several DANIPS officers have been transferred, including the applicant whose name figures at serial number 12. Aggrieved by the order, the applicant filed OA No.2119/2012. Notice was issued to the respondents and fifteen days time was allowed to them to decide the representation of the applicant. Meanwhile, until deciding the representation, the impugned orders dated 25.06.2012, with regard to the applicant, were kept in abeyance. Vide order dated 5.07.2012,...

Tag this Judgment!


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