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

• Review Application Nos. 21/09 & 20/09 In Original Application No. 114/2008. Case: 1. T. M. Sudha, Senior Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, Government of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram; 2. T. Pushparaj, Deputy Director of Survey, Pathanamthitta Vs 1. Biju Prabhakar, Assistant Secretary On Probation. , Directorate of Survey and Land Records, Trivandrum; 2. Union of India, Secretary To Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, New Delhi; 3. Union Public Service Commission, Secretary, Upsc., New Delhi; 4. State of Kerala, Chief Secretary To The Government, Government of Kerala, Trivandrum; 5. Principal Secretary, General Administration Special 'A'. Department, Trivandrum; 6. Principal Secretary Revenue. , Department of Revenue, Government Secretariat, Trivandrum. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. According to the review applicants, the aforesaid order has prejudicially affected their career prospects and hence, they have a right to prefer these Review Applications. For the reference purposes, RA No. 21/09 is taken into account. 3. In the aforesaid OA No. 114/2008, the applicant therein...

• O.A.No.060/00778/2016. Case: 1. Anil Kumar 2. Ranjit Singh Vs 1. Union of India 2. The Director, Hospitality, Chandigarh Administration. Central Administrative Tribunal

  (a) Issue direction to respondent no. 2 for revising the payment of minimum of pay scale from Rs.1300/- to Rs.1650/- plus D.A. w.e.f. 01.12.2011 as per the Chandigarh Administration, Finance Department (Accounts Branch) Circular No. 7000/1/2/09-F&PO(7)1496, Dated 14.02.2012 (Annexure A-4)...

• OA No. 2471 of 2008 with O. A. No. 2548 of 2009. Case: 1. ASI Om Prakash S/o Late Sat Narain Yadav, 2. SI Gyanender Rana S/o C. B. Rana Vs 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, ITO, New Delhi, 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, PHQ, 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police, South West District, PHQ. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Both these OAs are directed against the same order of penalty of censure passed in the joint departmental inquiry against the two applicants herein on a common charge and as such have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. A regular departmental inquiry was...

• O.A. No. 129/2010. Case: 1. Ben Johnson S/o K. V. Johnson, 2. P. J. Sebin S/o P. S. Joseph, 3. V. Sreejith S/o K. V. Vijaykumar, 4. K. R. Renoy S/o Late K. R. Ravi Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Defence, 2. Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Naval Base, Cochin, 3. Chief Staff Officer (P & A), Headquarters Southern Naval Command, Cochin. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The applicants filed this Original Application, aggrieved by a letter dated 29th January, 2010 of the Commander, Public Information Officer, Southern Naval Command for and on behalf of the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The said letter was addressed to the 2nd applicant and similar letters were also...

• O. A. No.060/00100/2017. Case: 1. Charanjit Singh 2. Pawan Kumar 3. Ravinder Kumar 4. Bhupinder Kaur 5. Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal

  8(ii). The respondents be directed to pay subsistence/duty allowances to applicants (UT Home Guard Volunteers) on Punjab pattern w.e.f. 11.03.2015, without any further delay in terms of directions of the Honble Supreme Court, with all the consequential benefits along with interest. 2. Sh. D.R....

• Original Application Nos. 2091 of 2011 & 2322 of 2011. Case: 1. Dr. Gajendra Prasad Sinha S/o Jagnatha Sinha, 2. Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh S/o Chotey Lal Vs Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. We take in hand for disposal two connected Original Applications bearing number 2091 of 2011 and 2322 of 2011 filed by Dr. Gajendra Prasad Sinha and Dr. Mahendra Pratap Singh respectively, by this common judgment, as the questions of facts and law are absolutely identical in both matters. Shri...

• Original Application Nos. 117 and 322 of 2012. Case: 1. Gaya Prasad and Ors., 2. Ram Mani Patel and Ors. Vs 1. Union of India, through Secretary and Ors., [Alongwith Original Application Nos. 123, 228 and 327 of 2012], 2. Union of India, through Secretary, Central Board of Direct Taxes through its Chairman, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax and Director General Income Tax (Inv) Aayakar Bhawan, [Alongwith Original Application No. 430 of 2012]. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Since the question of law and issues involved in these Original Applications (for brevity OAs) are similar, all the matters were heard together and the same are being disposed of by this common order. For the purposes of this order reference is being made to the facts and documents pleaded in OA ...

• O.A.No.83 of 2009. Case: 1. Indian Navy Civilian Employees Union, General Secretary, B. S. Prakash Rao, Visakhapatnam; 2. A. Seshagiri Rao, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam Vs 1. Chief of Naval Staff, Ihq, Ministry of Defence (Navy), New Delhi; 2. Flag Officer, Commanding-In-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam; 3. Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. The applicants herein are seeking similar orders as passed in OA.Nos.1175/2004, 89, 246 and 563/2005 dated 9.4.2008, contending that the present applicants also stand on the same footing as that of the applicants in the above said OAs. 3. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that ...

• Original Application No. 162 of 2012 & Contempt Petition No. 42 of 2012 in Original Application No. 162 of 2012. Case: 1. K. Anoop Sagar, S/o. P. Kesavan Namboodiri, aged 33 years, Field Publicity Officer, Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information, Government of India, Moosa Apartment, Makkani, South Bazar, Kannur-670 002, 2. Anoop Sagar K., S/o. P. Kesavan Namboodiri, aged 33 years, Field Publicity Officer, Directorate of Field Publicity, Ministry of Information, Government of India, Moosa Apartment, Makkani, South Bazar, Kannur-670 002 Vs 1. Union of India, rep: by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Room NO. 747, 'A' Wing, Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001 and Ors., 2. Shri S. Subramanian, age & father's name not known, working as Deputy Director, Directorate of Field Publicity, Regional Office, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India, Uppalam Road, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The applicant is a Senior Grade Indian Information Service Group-B officer now working as Field Publicity Officer, Directorate of Field Publicity, Cannanore. According to him the 4th respondent in collusion with the 3rd respondent without disclosing any order issued by the 3rd respondent or...

• Original Application No. 90 of 2009. Case: 1. K. Sarala Devi, Assistant Accounts Officer (Retd.), Thiruvananthapuram, 2. Employees Provident Fund Pensioners' Association, Represented by its Secretary, C. V. Gopinathan Nair, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Represented by its Chairman, New Delhi, 3. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, 4. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram, 5. Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The 1st applicant in this O.A. is a retired Assistant Accounts Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO). The 2nd applicant is an Association of EPFO Pensioners. For the retired employees of EPFO, a fixed medical allowance of Rs. 600/- per month is granted for outdoor treatment....