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

• Oa 817/2008, Ma 690/2008, Ma 1010/2008 and Ma 1287/2008. Case: 1. Vivek Bansal; 2. J. J. R. Meena; 3. G. P. Bansal; 4. Pawan Kumar Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi; 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi; 3. D. G. (Works. , C. P. W. D., Delhi; 4. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. As between the applicants and the official respondents there is absolutely no dispute that the matter in hand is covered by decision of this Tribunal in OA No. 1310/2008 in the matter of B.P. Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. decided on 09.01.2009, ad idem, therefore, counsel for the...

• Original Application No. 1446 of 2005. Case: 1. Anil Kumar Singh S/o Late Sita Ram Singh, 2. Rama Shankar Pathak S/o Late P. N. Pathak Vs 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Railway's Board, New Delhi, 2. General Manager, Eastern Railway, Head Quarter Officer Fairle Place, Calcutta Now East Central Railways Hajipur, 3. Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway Head Quarter Officer, Fairle Place, Calcutta now East Central Railway, Hajipur, 4. Chief Commercial Supdt. Eastern Railway Head Quarter Officer, fairle Place, Calcutta now East Central Railway, Hajipur, 5. Divisional Railway Manager Officer, Eastern Railway now East Central Railway, District Mughalsarai (U.P.). Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. As regards (a) above, the applicants contend that they could know about the Railway Board circular of 06-02-1990 (Annexure A-2) only in December, 2004 and the decision of the Apex court in the case of P.K. Srivastava (Annexure A-6) supporting the case of the applicants the applicants have...

• OA No. 3261/2009, MA No. 2259/2009. Case: 1. ASI Rambir Singh, (PIS No. 28770380), Muzafarnagar, 2. Constable Prem Pal (PIS No. 28980430), Bulandshahar Vs 1. Government of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, I. P. Estate, New Delhi, 2. Addl. Commissioner of Police, Traffic, I. P. Estate, New Delhi, 3. Dy. Commissioner of Police, Traffic (NR) Police Head Quarter, I. P. Estate, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. The Applicant is challenging the order dated 3.10.2008 of the disciplinary authority forfeiting one year's approved Service of the Applicant and the appellate authority's order dated 6.08.2009, rejecting the statutory appeal of the Applicant against the order of the disciplinary authority. 2. ...

• O.A. No. 472/2010, M.A. No. 318/2010. Case: 1. Bhagirath Sharma, 2. Satish Kumar, 3. Mahavir Prasad Rohilla, 4. Kukhpal Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority, through its Vice Chairman. Central Administrative Tribunal

  Applicants (4 in numbers) working as UDCs under the DDA have through this OA, filed under Section 19 of the AT Act, challenged denial of 2nd ACP to them. The applicants who had initially joined as work-charge Group 'D' employees, were subsequently appointed as LDCs and then promoted as UDCs. The...

• Original Application No. 1488 of 2005. Case: 1. Chhotey Lal S/o Ram Sewak, 2. Ram Ashray S/o Sattidin, 3. Daya Ram S/o Ram Dulare, 4. Ram Chandra S/o Brahmadin Vs 1. Union of India, Through General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, 2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad, 3. Asstt. Engineer, Works (I) North Central Railway, Kanpur. Central Administrative Tribunal

  1. What should be the date of revised pay scale of Valveman is the question involved in this case. While the respondents have stated that the revised pay scale of Rs 3050-4590 shall be only w.e.f. 01-10-2003, the applicants claim the same from the date of their initial appointment and have also...

• OA NO. 1952/2008, MA NO. 1944/2008, MA NO. 1945/2008 along with OA NO. 2289/2008, MA NO. 1943/2008, OA NO. 2290/2008, OA NO. 2291/2008, OA NO. 2292/2008, OA NO. 2293/2008, OA NO. 2359/2008, OA NO. 2731/2008. Case: 1. Dr. Mohd. Akhtar Hussain, S/o Subhan Khan, 2. Professor J.S.Gill S/o Sardar Bachan Singh, 3. Dr. Kamlesh Mittal w/o Late Shri Vijay Kumar Mittal, 4. Professor S.A.Shaffi S/o Late Shri S.S.Sahib, 5. Dr. Brahm Prakash, S/o Shri Ram Narain, 6. Dr. Brijraj Kishore Sharma, 7. Dr. Surja Kumari, 8. Dr. Kamla Bhutani Vs 1. Union of India through The Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi, 2. Secretary, Government of India, New Delhi, 3. National Council of Education of Research & Training, through The Director, New Delhi, 4. University Grants Commission, through The Secretary, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. The only question to be decided in these OAs is whether the Members of the academic staff of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (`NCERT for short) are eligible for enhancement of the age of superannuation from 62 to 65 years on the basis of the notification dated 23.03.2007...

• 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 ...

• T. A. No. 477/2009 (C.W.P. No. 7816-17/2005), M.A. No. 2588/2010. Case: 1. Indraprastha Hotel Employees Association, Through its President, 2. Suresh Kumar S/o Pritam Singh Vs 1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Ministry of Tourism, 2. Indian Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, 3. Hotel Indraprastha (Hotel Queen Road Private Limited) (Ashok Yatri Niwas), Through its Director. Central Administrative Tribunal

  (ii) issue writ of certiorari or any other/direction/order of similar nature, whereby quashing the Hotel Indraprastha Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2003 taken out by the respondent No.3 on 2.7.2003 being null and void; (iii) issue writ of mandamus or any other writ/direction/order of...

• O.A. No. 677/2008. Case: 1. K. C. Joshy, 2. S. James Raj Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, New Delhi, 2. Director General, Fisheries Survey of India, Mumbai. Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. According to the applicants, they entered the service of the Fisheries Survey of India at Cochin, as Marine Electrician and Refrigeration Mechanic respectively in the year 1994 in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and still continue in the same posts. According to them they are Diploma holders in...

• Original Application No. 278 of 2010, Original Application No. 364 of 2010, Original Application No. 1000 of 2010. Case: 1. K. Saseendranadhan, Administrative Officer (Rtd.), Ammu, Cochin, 2. P. V. Sujatha W/o N. K. Krishnan, Administrative Officer, O/o the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Cochin, 3. S. Thulasi, Administrative Officer, O/o the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin, 4. P. Sundarambal, Administrative Officer, Central Excise I Division, Ernakulam, Kathrikadavu, Cochin Vs 1. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Central Revenue Buildings, Cochin, 2. Chief Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Central Revenue Buildings, Cochin, 3. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Central Revenue Buildings, Cochin, 4. Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Central Excise Bhavan, Kathrikkadavu, Kaloor, Cochin, 5. Pay and Accounts Officer, Customs House, Wellington Island, Cochin, 6. Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi, 7. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, 8. Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Ernakulam I Division, .... Central Administrative Tribunal

  2. The applicants while working as Office Superintendents under the respondents were promoted as Administrative Officers in the month of May, 1997 and June, 2001 as the case may be. On promotion they opted to avail the benefit of pay fixation under FR 22 (1)(a)(i). The posts of Office...