Central Administrative Tribunal

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

• 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...

• 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...

Featured documents

• Original Application No. 171/2009. Case: 1. Duppada Kondala Rao; 2. V. Anand Chowdary; 3. M. S. Kiran Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Navy) , New Delhi; 2. Chief of Naval Staff (Principal Director of Civilian Personnel) , Naval Head Quarters, New Delhi; 3. Director of Logistics Support, Integrated Head Quarters of Ministry of Defence (Navy) , New Delhi; 4. Flag Officer Commanding-In-Chief, Eastern Naval Command, Visakhapatnam; 5. Project Director, Ship Building Centre, Visakhapatnam. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. It is the case of the applicants that they are similarly situated to the applicants in OA.755/200 and OA.420/2006 on the file of C.A.T. Earnakulam and Mumbai Bench respectively in regard to grant of ACP benefit from the date of initial appointment. The applicants therefore submitted a...

• Original Application No. 204 of 2009. Case: 1. All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees' Union (AIPEDEU), Trivandrum, Through its Circle Secretary, D. Sankarankutty, 2. M. S. Sabu, 3. K. A. Aniachan Vs 1. Union of India, Represented by Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Communications & Information Technology, (Department of Posts), New Delhi, 2. Director (T&E), Ministry of Communications & Information Technology (Department of Posts), New Delhi, 3. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure, New Delhi, 4. Chief Post Master General, Kerala Circle, Thiruvananthapuram. Central Administrative Tribunal

  The first applicant is All India Postal Extra Departmental Employees' Union (in short AIPEDEU), Kerala Circle, P&T House, Trivandrum and represented through its Circle Secretary. The 2nd and 3rd applicants are aggrieved parties. Their grievance is against the Annexure A-7 order dated 20/24.2.200...

• O.A.No.2755/2008. Case: 1. Ashok Kumar, 2. Rajinder Kumar, 3. Suresh Kumar, 4. Prem Chand Vs 1. Director General, Esi Corporation, New Delhi, 2. Director (Medical) Delhi, Esi Corporation, Esi Hospital, New Delhi, 3. Joint Director (Admn), Esi Scheme, Esi Hospital, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. For the post of Plaster Assistant, being a promotional post, the recruitment rules envisages; number of posts (6), classified for Group 'C' non-Ministerial with non-selection method. The educational qualification for direct recruitment is matriculation, which is provided in failing which clause, ...

• O.A. No. 700/2010, O.A. No. 3610/2009. Case: 1. Balachandran N., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', Aeronautical Development Establishment Thippasandra (ADET), Bangalore, 2. Padmanabhan G., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ADET, Bangalore, 3. Ravindra N. S., Senior Technical Assistant 'B', ADET, Bangalore, 4. Nagaraja H. S., Senior Technical Assistant 'B', ADET, Bangalore, 5. Nagesh D., Senior Technical Assistant 'B' ADET, Bangalore, 6. Venkatramanappa T., Senior Technical Assistant 'B', ADET, Bangalore, 7. Ramakrishna G., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', Electronic and Radar Development Establishment (ERDE), Bangalore, 8. Shashi Kumar V., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ERDE, Bangalore, 9. Srinivasa NR, Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ERDE, Bangalore, 10. Palanivelu S., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ERDE, Bangalore, 11. Prem Chandran A., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ERDE, Bangalore, 12. Palanivelu K., Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ERDE, Bangalore, 13. John Louis, Senior Technical Assistant 'C', ERDE, Bangalore, 14. Jessy Wilson J. R., Senior .... Central Administrative Tribunal

  3. The applicants in this OA have challenged the Circular No.DHRD/16342/VI CPC/DRTC/C/M/01 dated 08.06.2009 (Page 93) issued by Respondent No.2, whereby they have declared that the contents of para 2 (i) and (j) of the earlier clarifications issued on promotion with reference to merger of pay...

• OA No. 3721/2009, MA No. 2634/2009. Case: 1. Central Jail Employees Association, Through its General Secretary, Brahm Prakash (Head Warder), 2. Tilak Raj, Warder S/o Milki Ram, 3. Santosh Tiwari, Warder S/o R. K. Tiwari, 4. Praveen Rathi, Warder S/o Rattan Singh, 5. Krishan Chand, Warder S/o Ram Mehar, 6. Ram Dayal Paul, Head Warder S/o Late Ram Sumer Pal, 7. Prakash Chand, Head Warder S/o Net Ram Sharma, 8. Manjubala, Matron W/o Amit Kumar Sharma, 9. Sarita Devi, Matron W/o Dilbagh Singh, 10. Reeta, Head Matron W/o Dhananjay Singh, 11. Sunita, Head Matron W/o Narain Singh Vs 1. (Government of NCT) of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, 2. Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, 3. Director General (Prision), Tihar Jail Compelx, New Delhi, 4. Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Central Jail Employees Association along with others, which include Warders, Head Warders, Matrons and Head Matrons, have impugned respondents order dated 31.8.2009, where their request for revised pay band and grade pay, as recommended by VI Central Pay Commission (CPC) at par with their...

• TA No. 1267/2009. Case: 1. Devender Singh, Assistant Engineer, 2. Firoz, Assistant Engineer Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Through Commissioner. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. In the year 1985, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) held selection for filling up the posts of Assistant Engineer (AE) under the direct recruitment quota. A select list was prepared, wherein both the Applicants were at Sl. No.8 & 9 in the said select list. Due to the delayed action of ...

• Original Application Nos.181/00056/2016 & 181/00471/16. Case: 1. Faheema Meharban 2. Shahida A.K Vs 1. The Administrator Union Territory of Lakshadweep 2. The Secretary (Health) 3. The Director of Health Services 4. Ms.Shahida A.K. Central Administrative Tribunal

  Applicant's case is that Annexure A-2 notification for ANM-A3 check list was published with less marks shown in respect of the applicant in both ANM and SSLC. Applicant is a candidate for the post of ANM as per the notification dated 23.9.2013 of the directorate of Health Services, Kavarathi,...

• Original Application Nos. 670 and 17 of 2011. Case: 1. Hussain A, S/o. Kidave M.P., Agam House, Kavaratti, R.O. Plant Operator, Sub-Division L.P.W.D., Kavaratti Island, U.T of Lakshadweep and Ors., 2. K. P. Kunhikoya, S/o. A.P. Attakoya, Kunhipuvakada House, Kalpeni Island, U.T of Lakshadweep, R.O. Plant Operator, PWD Sub-Division, Kalpeni. Residing at Kalpeni Vs 1. The Administrator, U.T. Of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti - 68255, The Superintending Engineer, Lakshadweep Public Works Department, Kavaratti - 68255 and Union of India represented by Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi, 2. The Administrator, U.T. Of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti - 68255 and The Superintending Engineer, Lakshadweep Public Works Department, Kavaratti - 68255. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The Lakshadweep Administration had set up Desalination Plants in various Islands in the year 1990. Not having the expertise to operate the plants, the operation of the plant was entrusted, on payment of contract price by the Administration, to the Titanium Equipments and Anode Manufacturing...

• O.A. Nos. 643/2009 and 400/2010. Case: 1. Joju M. Mampilly, Inspector of Central Excise and K. Sreevallabha Senan, Inspector of Central Excise, 2. Joseph K. John Inspector of Central Excise Vs 1. Union of India (UOI) represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Ors., [Alongwith O.A. Nos. 650 and 835/2009], 2. The Commissioner of Central Excise, The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Kerala Zone, The Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai Zone and Union of India (UOI) represented by Secretary, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance. Central Administrative Tribunal

  i) F. No. A.22015/19/2006-Ad.III.A dated 27.3.2009 regarding relaxation of ban on Inter Commissioner ate Transfer (ICT for short) in Groups-B, C and D posts on "spouse ground". According to the said letter, the Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC for short) considered and...

• O.A. No. 491 of 2009. Case: 1. K. P. Joy, 2. Bharathan K. S., 3. M. N. Lalan, 4. K. N. Sasi Vs 1. Union of India Represented By Its Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi, 2. Flag Officer Commanding-In-Chief, Southern Naval Command, Kochi, 3. Chief Staff Officer (Personnel and Administration), Southern Naval Command, Kochi, 4. Administrative Officer Grade Ii, Staff Officer (Civilian Personnel), Kochi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. Crystallization of vested right and infringement upon such vested rights alone qualify a person to seek judicial remedy for restoration of such vested rights. No vested right is created in temporary employment. (State of H.P. v. Nodha Ram,1998 SCC (L&S) 478) For a casual labourer, there is...