Central Administrative Tribunal

Jurisdiction/Issuing Court

Latest documents

• Original Application No. 180/00125/2016. Case: P.K. Krishnankutty Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Applicant is a Peon in the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He is aggrieved by non-reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for treatment of his diabetic foot which according to him was advised by a private hospital in Ernakulam for amputation but got cured after undergoing treatment at Cheruppulassery Co-operative Hospital in Pa...

• Original Application No. 180/00474/2016. Case: M.K. Kutty Krishnan Nair Vs The Director, Central Institute of Fisheries Technology. Central Administrative Tribunal

  Applicant, a retired Technical Officer who was working under the respondents, is seeking full reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred by him for the treatment of his wife under the Central Services (Medical Attendance) Rules, 1944 [hereinafter referred to as the CS(MA) Rules]. His wife had undergone treatment for bilateral total knee replace...

• OA No. 060/00563/2017. Case: Karambeer S/o Sh. Leelu Ram Vs Union Territory of Chandigarh through Home Secretary and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  -- (i) The respondents be directed to re-conduct the height test of the applicant or be directed to appear before any Medical Board, which the respondents deem fit, to get the applicant's height re-measured particularly keeping in view the Medical Certificate dated 20.05.2017 (Annexure A-3) issued by Medanta Hospital, Gurgaon certifying that the he...

• Original Application No.180/00338/2017. Case: Unnikrishnan T.V. Lower Division Clerk Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. The applicant has approached this Tribunal for a declaration that denial of promotion to the applicant from the cadre of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) to the cadre of Upper Division Clerk (UDC) is discriminatory and illegal and for a direction to be issued to the respondents to promote him to higher grade within a time frame. 3. The applicant is a...

• O.A. No.060/00571/2017. Case: Sanjiv Kaul and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Applicants Sanjiv Kaul (Regular Lecturer), Officer Incharge of Civil Engineering Department, Maninder Singh (Regular Lecturer), Officer Incharge of Department of Architecture Assistance Course, and Sukhdev Singh Bhogal (Regular Lecturer), Officer Incharge of Department of Production and Industrial Engineering, who are working in Chandigarh Colle...

• Original Applications N0. 060/00835/2016. Case: P.K. Sarin Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The applicant joined as Junior Engineer on 02.08.1976 and was promoted as Assistant Engineer in the year 1984. He was allowed 2nd Assured Career Progression (ACP) in the scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200/- w.e.f. 1.7.2006. According to him, his 3rd MACP was due w.e.f. 1.9.2008. Since, the same was not granted to him, he filed Original Application N...

• Original Application No. 256 of 2015. Case: Ram Lakhan Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. The father of the applicant died on 22.1.1975. It is contended that the applicant took birth after death of his father. It is also contended that after attaining the majority, the applicant applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 24.2.2014 i.e. after ten years from attaining the majority. Thereafter, the applicant gave representation

• OA No. 060/00508/2017. Case: Sh. Jagat Singh son of Late Sh. Kharak Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that similar matter wherein similar order was challenged before this Tribunal denying the benefit to get the facility of CGHS, came up for consideration before this Court. After exchange of pleadings, it came on record that matter regarding medical facility under CGHS, is pending with the concerned Min...

• O.A. No.060/01097/2016. Case: Harpreet Singh son of Jaswant Singh Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The challenge in this Original Application (O.A.), filed by applicant Harpreet Singh son of Sh. Jaswant Singh, is to the impugned order dated 01.08.2016 (Annexure A-1), whereby he was (deemed) suspended on account of detention in criminal case, and order dated 08.11.2016 (Annexure A-3), by virtue of which, his period of suspension was further ex...

• Original Application No. 217 of 2015. Case: Ram Narayan Vs Union of India and Ors.. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The applicant has filed this O.A. claiming difference of Gratuity amount to the tune of Rs. 43,448/- per annum as well as arrears of pay amounting to Rs. 42761/- as a result of grant of CPC alongwith interest @ 18% per annum. 2. The applicant has not filed any calculation sheet. It has been contended that the applicant inducted into Railway se...

Featured documents

• O.A. No.453/2007. Case: 1. 1. P. Satyanarayana, 2. N. S. S. C. A. Nrusimham; 3. V. U. Ravi; 4. P. P. Balan; 5. T. Bhavanarayana; 6. D. S. N. Murthy; 7. P. Sankar Rao, 8. B. A. Varma; 9. D. V. N. Swamy; 10. G. C. Nayak; 11. M. D. Wicket; 12. A. C. Nayak; 13. A. Someswara Rao; 14. T. Bernard; 15. S. Bhaskara Rao; 16. B. Papa Rao; 17. V. Narasimha Rao; 18. M. Gandhi; 19. M. Naga Raju; 20. D. V. S. S. P. S. Sarma; 21. N. N. Nageswara Rao; 22. K. Nirieekshana Rao; 23. P. Naganna; 24. M. A. Jaya Raja Rao; 25. S. V. Subba Rao; 26. L. Prusti; 27. K. Peddi Raju; 28. Syed Ali; 29. P. David Paul; 30. V. Sanyasi Rao; 31. B. Thrinadha Rao; 32. G. V. V. Koteswara Rao; 33. M. K. Guha; 34. K. Madhavan; 35. V. Mahendra; 36. K. K. Thambi Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi; 2. Chief of Naval Staff, Naval Headquarters, New Delhi; 3. Flag Officer Commanding-In Chief, Visakhapatnam; 4. Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. This application has been filed questioning the proceedings of 4th respondent in PES/3202/PF/NI dated 4.10.2005/7/11/2005/10.11.2005/ 11.11.2005/14.11.2005 rejecting the request of the applicants for stepping up of pay on par with their juniors in the cadre of Charge man-I and has sought for the ...

• O.A. No. 545/2008. Case: 1. Anil Kumar T. T. S/o Thankappan, Assistant Loco Pilot, 2. D. Ajay S/o R. K. Dinesan, Assistant Loco Pilot, 3. A. Ajay S/o G. Anandan Nair, Assistant Loco Pilot, 4. K. M. Sudheesh S/o Krishnan Nair, Assistant Loco Pilot, 5. M. Rajesh S/o Murukesan M., Assistant Loco Pilot Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary Railway Board, New Delhi, 2. General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai, 3. Chief Personnel Officer, Southern Railway Headquarters, Chennai, 4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palakkad, 5. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Thiruvananthapuram, 6. M. Sukumaran, Assistant Loco Pilot, Southern Railway, Mangalapuram, 7. K. A. Nishad, Assistant Loco Pilot, Chief Crew Control Office, Southern Railway, Ernakulam, 8. M. S. Nirmalkumar, Assistant Loco Pilot, Chief Crew Control Office, Southern Railway, Ernakulam. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Applicants are working as regular Assistant Loco Pilots in the Palakkad Division of the Southern Railway. They registered their names for inter-Divisional transfer to Trivandrum Division (A-1). According to them, requests for transfer get preference in filling up the vacancies over Casual...

• TA No. 415/2009 and MA No. 671/2009. Case: 1. Association of Qualified & Trained Technologists, 2. Naveen Nischal Sharma Vs All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Through its Director and Others. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The Applicants herein are two viz. one is the Association of Qualified and Trained Technologists and the second is Shri Naveen Nischal Sharma and have moved the Hon'ble high Court of Delhi in WP(C) No.8638/2007 with following prayers "(i) quash the impugned amended Recruitment Rules...

• Original Application No. 945 of 2011. Case: 1. Bhagunti Bai alias Bhagwati Bai, 2. Raja Bhai alias Raja Babu Vs 1. The General Manager, West Central Railway, 2. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), 3. Deshraj Yadav. Central Administrative Tribunal

  "I. Hon''ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant No.2 for grant of compassionate appointment and make the payment of pension to applicant No.1 with all consequential benefits holding therein that Deshraj Yadav is not entitled to apply...

• O.A. No. 1696/2008, O.A. No. 1312/2008. Case: 1. Constable Rajeev Tyagi, Ghaziabad, 2. Constable Raghu Raj, PIS No. 28980417, Bhajan Pura, Delhi Vs 1. Government of NCT of Delhi, through Commissioner of Police PHQ, New Delhi, 2. Addl. C.P. (Security) Security, New Delhi, 3. D. S. Norawat (DANIPS Cadre Group 'B') Addl. DCP, HQ (Security), New Delhi, 4. Jt. Commissioner of Police Traffic, PHQ, New Delhi, 5. DCP (Traffic/HQ) PHQ, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. Applicants, in both the OAs, who are working as Constables in Delhi Police, have been proceeded against in a major penalty proceeding under Rule 16 of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (for short 'Rules') on intervention by PRG team on the allegations of accepting bribe from...

• T.A. 138/2009, M.A. 850/2009, M.A. 1772/2009; T.A. 100/2009, M.A. 851/2009; T.A. 117/2009, M.A. 852/2009; O.A. 419/2009, M.A. 661/2009; O.A. 431/2009, M.A. 307/2009, M.A. 208/2009, M.A. 666/2009; T.A. 312/2009, M.A. 660/2009; O.A. 1209/2009. Case: 1. Dr. Nirendra Dev, Deputy Director, All India council of Technical Education, 2. Rominder Randhawa, Deputy Director, All India council of Technical Education, 3. G. Manushree, Deputy Director, All India council of Technical Education, 4. Aradhana Chopra, Deputy Director, All India council of Technical Education, 5. Dr. Buhpendra Kumar Sharma S/o Dr. Narendra Nath Sharma, 6. Sandeep Singhal S/o Surender Singhal, 7. Dr. B. K. Tosh S/o P. Tosh, 8. Dr. V. K. Kohli S/o B. M. Kohli, 9. Sulata Dandapat, Assistant Director (RID), AICTE, 10. Dr. Arindam Kumar Chanda S/o A. K. Chanda, 11. Dr. Manish Bhalla S/o B. N. Bhalla, 12. Sanjeev Batra S/o I. J. Batra, 13. Shriom Dalal S/o Zile Singh, 14. Dr. Sanjay Sharma S/o O.P. Sharma, Deputy Director, Mumbai Vs 1. All India Council of Technical Education through its Chairman, 2. Member Secretary, All India council of Technical Education, 3. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development, 4. Government of Assam, Education (Higher) Department, .... Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. By this common order, we propose to decide seven connected Transferred/Original Applications bearing nos. T.A. 138/2009; T.A. 100/2009; T.A. 117/2009; O.A. 419/2009; O.A. 431/2009; T.A. 312/2009; and O.A. 1209/2009, as common questions of law and facts arise in all the cases. Learned counsel...

• O. A. No. 4276/2010, M. A. No. 3219/2010. Case: 1. Group 'B' CPWD Office Staff Association (All India), Through its General Secretary, M. Nazaruddin, 2. Anand Singh Vs 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) Implementation Cell, New Delhi, 2. Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi, 3. Director General, Central Public Works Department, 4. Director (S & D), Office of Directorate General, CPWD, 5. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. In this OA, the applicants have challenged the order of the respondents dated 06.03.2009, rejecting their claim for placements of the posts of Office Superintendents (Gr.I and Gr.II) in CPWD in the upgraded revised pay structure of grade pay of Rs.4600/- in the pay band PB-2. 3. Applicant No.1...

• Original Application No. 161 of 2007. Case: 1. J. Rajmohan; 2. R. Ramakrishnan; 3. P. Subramanian; 4. S. Sekharan; 5. A. Francis Xaviour; 6. K. Mumurthy; 7. S. Ganesan; 8. S. Bhaskaran; 9. R. Rajendran; 10. M. Viswanathan Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary To The Government of India, New Delhi; 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Palghat; 3. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Palghat. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. This case poses a very interesting question. While filling up the vacancies both under the general category and reserved category, for the post of Goods Drivers (Loco Pilots 'Goods), whether the vacancies should be filled up in the order of vacancies that arose in the aforesaid category or the...

• Original Application No. 839 of 2009. Case: 1. K. C. Sayeed S/o Indeen, 2. Zainalabid S/o Abdula Hajee, 3. P. V. P Badarudeen S/o E. K. Attakoya, 4. M. C. Mohamed Koya S/o Ahamed Haji, 5. K. Akbar Ali S/o Koyamma Koya, 6. M. C. Mohammed Hussain S/o K. Ahamed Ali, 7. P. I. Attakoya S/o Koya Haji Vs 1. Administrator U.T. of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti, 2. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The applicants in this O.A. are Laboratory Technicians in the Department of Medical and Health Services, Union Territory of Lakshadweep. They were granted financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000 and Rs. 6500-10500 on completion of 12 and 24 years of service...

• O.A. No. 489/2009 & 492/2009. Case: 1. K. Sivathanu Pillai S/o Kumara Swami Pillai, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, 2. C. Thankamony S/o Chellappan Pillai, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, 3. M. D. Thomas S/o Daniel, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum, 4. K. Ravindran S/o Kunjan Pillai, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum, 5. A. C. Abraham S/o Cheriyan, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum, 6. G. Chandran S/o Gopalan, 7. V. Ramachandran Nair S/o Velayudhan Pillai, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum, 8. Mohan Kuruvilla S/o Kuruvilla, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector Southern Railway, Trivandrum, 9. K. Raveendran S/o Kunju Pillai, Retd. Sr. Loco Inspector, Southern Railway, Trivandrum Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi, 2. General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai, 3. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Palghat. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. The applicants are retired Senior Loco Inspectors from Palghat Division of Southern Railway in 1999 and 1997 respectively. Their retiral benefits were settled in terms of Annexure A-2 order by adding 30% add on pay element to their basic pay. However, they came to know by orders/judgments in...