Skip to content


Latest Cases Home > Latest Court: central administrative tribunal principal bench new delhi Page 1 of about 215 results (0.201 seconds)

Jun 06 2014 (TRI)

Jai Prakash and Others Vs. Govt.of Nct of Delhi, New Delhi and Another

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

(Oral). P.K. Basu, Member (Administrative):- 1. MA.1738/2014 filed under Rule 4 (5) (a) of the C.A.T. (Procedure), Rules, 1987, for joining together is allowed. 2. In the present original application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants have sought issuance of directions to the respondents to formulate the policy to regularize their services in view of the judgments of the Honble High Court and Honble Supreme Court and further by considering the decisions of the other States, which have regularized the services of the contractual employees. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that the respondents appointed the applicants as Staff Nurse (Male/Female) in various Hospitals, Health Establishments, under the Respondent No.1, managed though its Health and Family Welfare Department/ Respondent No.2, on contract basis and have been continuing them in such capacity for quite long. According to him, the initial appointment of the applicants was...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

Harsh Singh, Nagpur and Others Vs. Union of India Through Its Secretar ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A). MA-1378 of 2014 1. This application has been filed for filing one application. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. OA-1378/2014 The applicants of this OA are candidates who successfully cleared the Civil Services Examination, 2012 and joined the National Academy of Direct Taxes (NADT), Nagpur for induction training as 67th Batch of Indian Revenue Service (IRS) since December 2013. They are aggrieved by the decision of the respondents in not permitting them to write the Civil Services Examination again in 2014 and also not granting them Extra Ordinary Leave for preparing for the same. They have, therefore, filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:- i. That the present application maybe allowed and impugned order dated 29.03.2014 and 07/08.04.2014 be set aside. ii. That the respondents be directed to grant permission to applicants to apply and take CSE-2013 and further be granted Extra Ordinary Leave asked for preparing for such examinatio...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

V.S. Bhartiya, Working as Garrison Engineer Vs. Union of India, Throug ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J). 1. In this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following relief: i). Declare that the applicant is not liable for any field service liability in terms of- the Civilian in Defence Services (Field Service Liability) Rules,1957; ii). Quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01 Oct 2013; and iii). Direct the respondents to immediately post out the applicant from GE Khumbhathang, a declared field area to any other place which is not field; and iv).To award exemplary costs; and v). To pass any other order as this Honble Tribunal deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Brief facts of the applicants case run thus: The applicant was initially appointed as Superintendent Grade II (Buildings and Roads) in Military Engineer Services (MES), and he joined as such on 28.3.1988. Para 2(v) of his appointment letter contained a condition that he would be subject to Field Service Liability ...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

Mahavir Singh, Delhi Vs. Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. The applicant, who is working in the substantive post of Peon and in the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on ad hoc basis, filed the present OA, seeking the following reliefs: 8.1. Direct the Respondents to amend the seniority list and place the applicant above Shri Lohre Ram in the seniority list since the applicant is senior to him. 8.2.Direct the Respondents to confirm the applicant on the post of LDC with effect from 24.10.2000 i.e. the date from which his junior was confirmed by the Respondent. 8.3.Direct the Respondent to consider applicant for promotion to the post of UDC with effect from 27.04.2010 i.e. the date from which his junior was promoted to the post of UDC with all consequential benefits. 8.4. Levy exemplary cost on the respondent for their inaction, and deliberate unwanted delay in implementing C.A.T.s orders which has caused immense mental agony to the applicant. 8.5. Grant any other relief which the Court may think just and proper und...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

Sayeeda Begum Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation Through Its Commis ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

A.K. Bhardwaj, J. 1. On receipt of request from the Directorate of Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi / Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) invited applications for the posts of Assistant Teacher /Teacher (Primary) vide Advertisement Nos.07/07 and 08/07 under post code Nos.164-165/07 and Teacher (Primary) Urdu under post code No.166/07. In terms of the provisions of Recruitment Rules for the posts notified on 8.5.2006 and 13.7.2007, the age for the post was reduced from 32 (Male)/ 42 (Female) to 20-27 years. The cut-off date for submission of the applications was 29.10.2007. The rules were challenged before the Honble High Court of Delhi. In the meantime, the examinations for the post was conducted on 15-16.6.2008 by the Board. The petition filed before the Honble High Court was disposed of on 28.8.2008 with the following directions (as provided in page 61 of the paper book): To conclude the language and marks crit...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

Sorabh Mathur, Cantt Vs. Union of India Through Secretary (Defence) Mi ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the posting order dated 3.1.2014 (Annexure A-1) whereby he is posted from CE (AF) WAC Palam Zone to PM MAP Kapurthala. 2. Mr. Vinay K. Garg, learned counsel for applicant submitted that the applicant is working in Military Engineer Services (MES) as Superintending Engineer and is an officer of the level of Director, thus the respondents are not justified in transferring him as Project Manager in Married Accommodation Project (MAP). According to him, the post of Project Manager, Kapurthala is meant to be manned by an Executive Engineer and not by an officer of Director level. To buttress his submission, he referred to rationalization of MS and E1B VAC dated 4.6.2012 (Annexure A-2), letter dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure A-6), letter dated 22.4.2010 (Annexure A-7) and the table describing the duties of CWE (Annexure A-8). 3. Learned counsel for applicant further submi...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

NitIn Kumar Sahu Vs. the Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

1. The applicant joined the service as Inspector, Group C officer in Central Excise (Delhi Zone) on 22.12.2009. The Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) issued a circular No.A-22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A dated 27.3.2009 providing for inter-commissionerate transfer (ICT) of Groups B, C and D posts on spouse ground without loss of seniority. The circular is reproduced hereinbelow:- Subject: Ban on Inter-Commissionerate Transfers (ICT) in Group-B; C and D Posts, Relaxation on Spouse Ground. I am directed to refer to the Boards Circular F. No. A-22015/3/2004-Ad.IIIA dated 19.02.2004 as modified vide letter dated 09.03.2004; vide which the Inter-Commissionerate Transfers of Groups B, c and D officers were banned. Although the term used was Inter-Commissionerate Transfers, the ban was actually confined to transfers from one Cadre Controlling Authority to another. There was no ban on transfers amongst the Commissionerates having common cadre, where no loss of seniority was involved, as was c...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

Har Swaroop Sharma, Delhi Vs. the Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through the Ch ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J). 1. This OA has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following main reliefs: Quash the entire proceedings of the I.O and charge memo dated 03.04.2006, Impugned order dated 24.05.2012 and dated 27.11.12, allow the O.A. with cost. Direct the respondents to grant ACP-1st and MACP 2nd benefits w.e.f. 27.02.2003 and 27.02.2011 respectively with all the benefits. 2. The respondents issued a Charge Memorandum dated 03.04.2006 (Annexure 3 Colly.) to the applicant, which contains the following Charge: ARTICLE I SHRI, HAR SWAROOP, T.G.T. GBSSS-NO.1, GHONDA, SHAHADRA, DELHI while working in the said School had claimed Rs.25350/- only (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Only) as LTC amount for the block year 1994-97 extended up to 1998 in respect of himself and other members of his family for visiting TRIVANDRUM. On verification, the tickets and certificates furnished by the said teacher was found fake. This show...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

H C Vijay Singh Vs. Govt. of Nctd Through the Commissioner of Police, ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

A.K. Bhardwaj, M (J): 1. Vide notice dated 28.07.2010, the applicant was called upon to show cause as to why his conduct of not taking action against unauthorized construction at C-26, 3rd Floor, Roof of 11, open space in front of J-81 of the Dilshad Colony be not censured. In reply to the notice, the applicant explained that at the relevant point of time he was posted at Beat No. 10 and thereafter he was deployed in Beat No. 9 in the month of May. According to him, Beat No. 9 includes DDA Quarter New Seema Puri, ABDC Block of Dilshad Garden and in the said beat no authorized construction has taken place. Having considered his reply, the Disciplinary Authority passed the order No. F.XVI/302/2010/484-96 dated 12.01.2011 confirming the show cause notice and censuring the conduct of the applicant as well as SI Shishu Pal, Constable Sh. Vijay and Constable Sh. Sewa Singh.2. In the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority viewed that in the enquiry conduct by the PG Cell/NE on the compl...

Tag this Judgment!

May 30 2014 (TRI)

S.R. Mohapatra Vs. Union of India Through Secretary, New Delhi and Oth ...

Court : Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi

V.N. Gaur, Member (A). MA No. 1386 of 2011 The present application filed for condonation of delay is allowed.OA No.1757/2011 The present OA has been filed with the following prayer: (a). Call for the records of the case. (b) Direct the respondents to release and pay all legal dues of the applicant along with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 10.1.2009, i.e. after expiry of statutory notice period of three months from the date of notice of voluntary retirement, i.e. 10.10.2008. (c) Quash and set aside the removal order No. P/UBL/227/GAZ/Optg/UBL/SRM along with order No. E(O)I/2007/PU-2/SWR/50 dated 19.10.2009 issued by Dy. Secretary/E(O)I, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, against the applicant by the disciplinary authority being non-est in the eyes of law as the same has been passed after the retirement of the applicant. (d) Direct the respondents to pay all the retiral dues, namely, pension etc. along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from ...

Tag this Judgment!


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