CAT Reserves Judgment in Full Pension on Superannuation after 10 years of Service by Pre 2006 Pensioners

CAT Reserves Judgment in Full Pension on Superannuation after 10 years of Service by Pre 2006 Pensioners

Details of arguments in CAT Delhi on 13-1-2016

Our Review Application to cover full pension after 10 years on superannuation or absorption in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies was taken up by the CAT Bench on 13th afternoon.

The GOI Advocate made the following points which were duly countered by our Advocate:

(i) Since the verdict dated 21-4-2015 was based on OA 1165/2011 as the lead case, which did not seek pro-rata pension after 10 years on superannuation or absorption in PSUs/Autonomous Bodies, this issue cannot be raised now. Also, as per Apex court verdicts, if a verdict is silent on any particular prayer, it is relevant rulings for which the Bench said that this should be done within 2 days beyond which they would not wait.

Our Advocate effectively countered this contention by pointing out that:

* Although OA 1165 initially did not cover this plea of full pension after 10 years on superannuation/absorption in PSUs, the other two OAs filed subsequently, specifically covered this aspect. And since all the 3 OAs were clubbed together in the verdict dated 21-4-2015 for a common verdict, this prayer cannot be ignored;

* Notwithstanding this, it was brought to the notice of the Bench that as early as in 2013 (much before the verdict dated 21-4-2015) while filing our Rejoinder, it was specifically sought to amend our prayer in OA 1165/2011 to include this aspect also. Since GOI did not object to it at that time, the same is deemed to have been amended and this issue cannot be raised now.

* In any case, since all 3 OAs were clubbed together in a common verdict and this aspect was missed, it is well within the right of the Applicants to seek a Review of the order.

(ii) GOI Advocate mentioned that since this aspect was not raised in OA 655/2010 as mentioned in the verdict dated 1-11-2011, while seeking modified parity, this aspect cannot be raised now.

Our Advocate countered this by pointing out that:

* While considering the Writ of S 30 Pensioners Association seeking full parity with post 1-1-2006 pensioners, Delhi High Court remanded the case back to CAT with the direction to ignore paras 1-11 of verdict dated 1-11-2011 in our case (which formed the basis of adverse verdict in S 30 case also) and consider the matter afresh. As a result, the Full Bench allowed their plea of full parity in pension between pre and post 2006 pensioners, subject to the condition that the pension of a pre 2006 retiree from the higher grade cannot get a lower pension than the maximum pension of lower grade post 2005 retiree. He placed on record a copy of this verdict. Hence the reference of GOI to CAT verdict dated1-11-2011 was no longer relevant.

* The fact remains that the issue of denial of full pension after 20 years on VR and 10 years on superannuation/absorption in PSUs etc is covered by the same common instructions which have been quashed by Full Bench of the Tribunal and which decision has been upheld upto the highest level of Supreme Court while dismissing Curative Petition against CAT verdict dated 1-11-2011 in OA 655/2010. Consequently, discrimination between VR pensioners getting the benefit but not pensioners after superannuation/absorption on par with post 2005 retirees cannot be justified.

(iii) GOI Advocate again mentioned that they are going to file a Writ against earlier verdict dated 21-4-2015, to which the Bench reiterated that unless a stay is granted it does not matter. (Incidentally, as indicated in my mail of 6-1-2016, we have already filed a Caveat in Delhi High Court on 8-1-2016 to forestall any ex-parte stay in the matter).

The Bench has since reserved the verdict which we hope to be out very soon.

Regards,

Pratap Narayan

Read More »

Department cannot make recovery after retirement – Jabalpur CAT Order

DEPARTMENT CAN NOT MAKE RECOVERY AFTER RETIREMENT – JABALPUR CAT ORDER

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH

JABALPUR

Original Application No. 694 of 2013

Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 19th day of May, 2015

SHRI G. P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

K. L. Phoolmali, S/o late Umarao Phoolmali,

DOB 07.1.1952, R/o JM-70, Kishore Nagar,

Meera Kishan Kunj, District Khandwa – 450001 (MP) – Applicant

(By Advocate – Shri Vijay Tripathi)

Versus

1. Union of India through its Secretary

Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Posts,

Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001.

2. Chief Postmaster Master General, Madhya Pradesh Circle,

Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal – 462012 (MP)

4. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices,

Khandwa Division, Khandwa (MP) 450001 – Respondents

(By Advocate – Shri Amjad Ahmed, Proxy counsel of Shri A. T. Faridee)

(Date of reserving order : 14.05.2015)

ORDER

The applicant has preferred this Original Application for the following reliefs:

“8(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the possession of respondents for its kind perusal;

8(ii) Upon holding that reducing the basic pay of the applicant as Rs.19960/- is bad in law, command the respondents to calculate all retiral dues and pension of the applicant on the basis of the last basic of Rs. 20,410/-

8(iii) Direct the respondents to revise the pension, DCRG, leave encashment, commuted value of pension and pay arrears of the aforesaid amount with 18% interest p.a.;

8(iv) Direct the respondent to repay the amount of DCRG of Rs.43,790/- to the applicant with 18% interest;

8(v) Any other order/orders, direction/directions may also be passed.

8(vi) Award cost of the litigation to the applicant.

8(vii) Set aside the order dated 30.10.2012 (Annexure A/1), order dated 6.8.2012 (Annexure A/2) and order dated 4.4.2012 (Annexure R/7) with all consequential benefits.”

2. The learned counsel for applicant submitted that at the time of retirement, applicant was holding the post of Deputy Post Master, Khandwa Head Office in the Pay Band of Rs.9300-34800/- + Grade Pay of Rs.4600/- and his basic pay was Rs.20,410/-. However, while paying him retiral dues, the basic pay has been reduced from 20,410/- to 19,960/-. Further, Rs.43,790/- has been deducted from his DCRG, without assigning any reason. The applicant was inducted in the cadre of HSG (II) in the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 and posted as Deputy Post Master at Itarsi Head Office. Thereafter, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, the applicant was sent on deputation to work as Sub Post Master, Harda in the cadre of HSG (I) and he was given the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500/-. Appointment of applicant in the cadre of HSG (I) was approved by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and orders were issued on 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Thus, there is no justification for reduction of pay of the applicant for retiral benefits and deduction of Rs.43,790/- from DCRG.

3. The respondents, in their reply, have submitted that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005, Before that, vide the order dated 12.1.2005, he was posted on HSG (I) grade post of Sub Post Master, Harda Head Post Office by Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad. Since the applicant was working at that time with the office of Sr. Superintendent Post Offices, Hoshangabad, there was no ground for posting him on deputation basis in one of its offices. Thus, applicant was not entitled to the pay of HSG (I) grade on this posting at Harda as he was still in HSG (II) grade. In any case, applicant was promoted to HSG (II) grade on 29.10.2004 and had qualifying service of only two months as on 1.1.2005 in that grade, he could not have been promoted to HSG (I) grade so early as the qualifying service of three years was required for such promotion. Therefore, when his pension case was prepared, there was objection in regard to his pay fixation on 17.1.2005 in HSG (I) grade when he joined at Harda in compliance of order dated 12.1.2005 of SSPO Hoshangabad. Therefore, applicant’s pay was accordingly refixed and he was grated HSG(I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005 when he was actually promoted to that grade. Thus, due to correction of his pay fixation w.e.f 17.1.2005, his basic pay at the time of retirement was changed and applicant has been paid retiral benefits accordingly. Further, excess salary paid to him during this period has been recovered from the DCRG. Thus, the OA, being without any merit, deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and documents annexed therewith. I have also gone throught the writtern arguments filled by learned counsel for the respondents.

5. It is undisputed that the applicant was promoted to HSG (I) grade vide the order dated 18.8.2005 (Annexure A-3). Before that, he claims to be posted on deputation basis on a post of HSG (I) grade. However, the order dated 12.1.2005 (Annexure R-1) by which he was posted as Sub Post Master, Harda was issued by Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshangabad and since the applicant was already working in his jurisdiction, this posting could not be considered as on deputation. In-fact, this is simply a posting order on vacant post of Sub Post Master, Harda on which the applicant was posted on his own cost for which he may have requested at that time. Thus, applicant was not entitled to get the pay scale of HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 17.1.2005 on the basis of order dated 12.01.2005 (Annexure R-1). Therefore, respondents are not at fault in re-fixing his pay, by treating him promoted to HSG (I) grade w.e.f. 23.08.2005. In view of this correction, basic pay of applicant has been revised and applicant has been paid all the retiral benefits based on this pay. Thus, the respondents cannot be faulted in granting retiral benefits to the applicant based on his revised basic pay of Rs.19,960/- in place of Rs.20,410/-, and no interference with the orders of respondents in this matter, is justified, Therefore, the prayer of the applicant in this regard is rejected.

6. So far as deduction of Rs.43,790/- from the DCRG of the applicant is concerned, this amount has been deducted without issuance of any show-cause notice to the applicant. Relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Punjab and others etc v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) etc., Civil Appeal No. 11527 of 2014, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in that order, no recovery of excess payment can be made from retired employees or employee who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery. Since recovery of excess salary has been done after retirement of applicant, such recovery is not in accordance with law. Therefore, the respondents are directed to refund Rs.43,790/- deducted from DCRG of the applicant, within a period of 60 days from the date of communication of this order. However, no interest shall be payable on that amount.

7. Thus, the O.A is partly allowed. No order on costs.

Sd/-

(G. P. Singhal)

Administrative Member

Courtesy:www.govtempdiary.com

Read More »

Both the SPOUSES, if Posts are available- BE POSTED IN THE SAME PLACE [GUWAHATI CAT]

Both the SPOUSES, if Posts are available- BE POSTED IN THE SAME PLACE [GUWAHATI CAT]

CAT JUDGEMENT

As per OM, dated 30-9-2009 of Government of India, it is stipulated that both huaband and wife working in the same department of central service should mandatorily be posted in the same station, If posts are available, especially to look after the welfare of their children.

Facts: This OA is filed praying to set aside the impugned / allocation order, dated 5-2-2013 in respect of the Applicant whereby the Applicant is sought to be transferred to I&B, Kolkata.

The Applicant, an Assistant Accounts Officer in the office of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIAI), Planning Commission, Government of India, Regional Office Guwahati was sought to be

transferred to I&B, Kolkata on the ground of abolition of the post held by him in Guwahati vide Letter, dated 18-1-2013. O.M., dated 12-6-1997 stipulates that posting of husband and wife at the same station which subsequently amended stipulating that if both the husband and wife are working in the same department and if posts are available, they must mandatorily be posted in the same station. Child care stipulates both being posted in the same station up to the children attaining 18 years of age. As the children of the Applicant are aged 17 and 7 years and his wife is serving as Sr. Accountant in the office of PAO (SSB) Guwahati, the Applicant is entitled to get the benefit of OM, dated 12-6-1997 and O.M., dated 30-9-2009. Against his transfer, the Applicant initially made a representation for allowing him to stay at Guwahati. But during the pendency of his representation, the impugned transfer order was issued. Further having spent 22 years of his service out of his home Town i.e., Guwahati-only one and half years back he was transferred to Guwahati.

The Tribunal read the OM, dated 12-6-1997 wherein it is stipulated that both the spouses should invariably be posted together to lead a normal life especially till children are 10 years of age. If both the spouses are working in the same department or in the same central service, they should be mandatorily be posted at the same station if posts are available. Those instructions are not taken note of by the Respondents while issuing the transfer order of the Applicant, dated 5-2-2013 and effected transfer while the Applicant’s request for retaining him at Guwahati is pending.

In the case of Sarvesh Kumar Awasthi v. U.P Jal Nigam and others [2003 (11) SCC 740], the Apex Court held that transfer of officers is required to be effected on the basis of set norms or guidelines. But the transfer of the Applicant is issued violating set norms laid in O.Ms.. dated 12-6-1997 and 30-9-2009. Hence the Applicant is directed to make a comprehensive representation in two weeks from the date of receipt of this order enlisting all his grievances and the departmental authority should dispose of the said representation by a reasoned order in four months’ time giving opportunity to the Applicant for a personal hearing to explain his grievances. Till such time the representation of the Applicant is disposed of, the impugned order, dated 5-2-2013 shall be kept in abeyance.

OA is ordered accordingly.

[Sri Gautam Das v. Secretary Ministry of Finance and others. 3/2014, SwamysnewS 74, (Guwahati). date of judgment 18-2-2013. 

Source:http://confederationhq.blogspot.in/2014/03/both-spouses-if-posts-are-available-be.html

Read More »

CAT urged to improve its Efficiency Propasals to Amend CAT Act under Cosideration says Narayansamy.

   Union Minister of State for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Shri V Narayansamy said that there is an urgent need to strengthen Central Administrative Tribunal( CAT) and make it more effective. Speaking as Special Guest at the daylong All India Conference of the members of Central Administrative Tribunal here today he said to streamline the functioning of Administrative Tribunals, a proposal to amend Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 is under active consideration of the Government. The Minister said one of the main amendments proposed is to authorize Chairman of the Administrative Tribunals to delegate his powers regarding Transfer petitions. The Bill was referred to the Department related Parliament Standing Committee and the Committee has submitted its report on the proposed amendments. He also informed the conference that another proposal to bring about uniformity of tenure, service conditions etc. of the members of all judicial tribunals is under consideration of the Government. “To evolve a consensus on these issues, an Inter Ministerial Group has been set up” the Minister added.

   Commending the achievements of the CAT Shri Narayansamy said “ There is still room for improvement in its efficiency. It is observed that by the end of January,2013, 805 cases were pending for more than five years. We should definitely look into this aspect and try to minimize such pendency. I would, therefore, request the Chairman and members of the tribunal to accelerate the pace of disposal of cases.”

Read More »

Online Entrance Examinations for Management.

   The All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) has conducted online National Level Common Management Admission Test 2012 (CMAT) for facilitating institutions to select suitable students for admission in all management programs approved by AICTE for year 2012-13. AICTE will conduct CMAT twice in a year for admission in AICTE approved institutions for session 2013-14. A computerized Common Admission Test (CAT) for admission to Indian Institutes of Management (IIMs) has also been conducting by IIMs since 2009. Being autonomous institutions, the entire process of conducting exam is coordinated centrally by IIMs. The Director Forum takes overall policy decision regarding CAT examination.

Read More »

Pension can't be withheld due to pending criminal case: CAT

   Pension and increments of a public servant cannot be withheld only on the basis a pending criminal case against him unless he is convicted, the apex administrative tribunal has held.

   "It is amply clear that only on the basis of the case pending against the applicant (Primary School Head Master Lakhi Ram), pension cannot be withheld under Central Civil Services (CCS Pension) Rules, 1972," a two-member bench of Central Administrative Tribunal headed by Justice Meera Chhibber said.

Read More »

EMPLOYEES MAY NOT BE ABLE TO CHALLENGE CAT JUDGMENT IN SUPREMECOURT

NEW DELHI: Bad news is in store for government employees contesting matters relating to their service conditions in the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as they may not be able to challenge the judgment in the Supreme Court.

Government employees not satisfied with CAT orders on their service matters will continue to appeal in High Courts as government's plan to enable them approach the apex court directly has received a thumbs down from the top law officer.

Recently, the Department of Personnel had asked the Law Ministry whether the present system of CAT orders being challenged in High Courts be changed to fast track disposal of cases of government employees relating to their service conditions and employment rules.

The Law Ministry referred the matter to Attorney General Ghoolam Vahanvati who opined against the move saying a 1997 Supreme Court judgment on the issue should continued to be followed.

"As of now, the buck stops here (on the issue)," Law Minister M Veerappa Moily told PTI when asked to comment on Vahanvati's opinion.

He said his ministry was trying to find a solution. "But I would not like to add anything more to it," he added.

When the CAT was established in 1985 by an Act of Parliament, its rules clearly stated that its judgments on service related matters of state and central government employees can only be challenged in the apex court.

While the same rules is in operation even today, a 1997 Supreme Court ruling held that judicial review is the basic feature of the Constitution and a High Court's power on judicial review cannot be taken away.

After the judgment, appeals against CAT rulings were entertained in High Courts.

"The Armed Forces Tribunal Act has been borrowed from CAT. Appeals against Tribunal's orders can only be challenged in the Supreme Court. But in CAT's case, it has become a three tier system...the entire purpose of CAT has been defeated," said a CAT functionary.

He said while CAT usually disposes off a case in six months, appeal in High Court often takes years.

"They pay Rs 50 as fee to move CAT, but they have to pay thousands of rupees in High Court...if the matter reaches Supreme Court, the time and cost involved is massive," he said.

Source: Economic times

Read More »

Probationers can be sacked: CAT

A person working on probation can be sacked from service without prior hearing if his or her performance is not satisfactory, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.

"A probationer's services could be terminated if his performance is unsatisfactory and the termination would be valid from all angles," the CAT's bench of members Veena Chhotray and Shanker Raju said in their ruling.

The country's apex tribunal to adjudicate government employees' dispute on service matters gave the ruling on a petition by a trained graduate teacher, Narbda Singh, a resident of Kushinagar (UP), challenging the termination order from Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS).

Singh opposed the order saying action was taken without being given an opportunity to present his case or to defend himself and that this had led to violation of the principles of natural justice.

The KVS justified its decision saying despite several opportunities and reminders he had failed to improve his performance prompting it to take the step under the KVS rules.

Satisfied with KVS's contentions, the tribunal rejected Singh's plea saying the termination did not violate the principles of natural justice.

"We do not find any punitiveness and victimisation in the termination order. The unsatisfactory performance is not the foundation of the order but is a motive as per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter.

"Such termination does not require prior hearing or following the principles of natural justice and the right to be heard," the tribunal said.

Source; Indian Express

Read More »

All India Conference of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Opened Today CAT Commended for Speedy Disposal of Cases

All India Conference of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Opened Today CAT Commended for Speedy Disposal of Cases

The All India Conference of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) began here today. The Conference, which is being held in the Silver Jubilee year of the CAT, was inaugurated by Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir, a senior Judge of the Supreme Court and was presided over by Dr. M. Veerappa Moily, the Union Minister of Law & Justice. The Minister of State for Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Shri V. Narayanasamy was also present on the occasion. The Inaugural Session was followed by in house discussion on the agenda items raised by the Members and the session was chaired by the Chairman, CAT, Justice V.K. Bali.

Speaking at the Inaugural Session, the Union Minister of Law & Justice Dr. Moily called upon for the change of attitude in our administrative governance to ensure that unnecessary and trivial service matters are not brought before the Tribunals and Courts. He said that we need to devise mechanism where the problems of the employees are sorted out in the administrative set up itself. To sort out these issues, he said, we need to do ‘out of the box thinking’. He said that the accountability, performance and output of the employees must be judged while handling their cases.

In his inaugural address, Mr. Justice Altamas Kabir applauded the Central Administrative Tribunal for disposing of the cases before it expeditiously and also commended it for the fact that most of its judgments have been upheld by the higher courts.

Speaking on the occasion, the Minister of State for Personnel, P.G. & Pensions, Shri V. Narayanasamy said that the pendency in the Tribunal is substantially low and the time period to dispose of cases is much less compared to higher courts. He said that the government is seriously thinking of ways and means to bring within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal many more Central Govt. organizations and institutions working. He said that so far we have brought 191 organizations within the ambit of the CAT, so that more Government employees would be in a position to get speedy justice for their grievances. If we can fulfill the infrastructure needs of CAT, even the PSUs and Public Sector Banking Institutions could be covered. He asked the CAT officials to send a proposal to Planning Commission stipulating their infrastructural needs and assured that his Ministry would make efforts to ensure that CAT’s requirements in this regard are fully met.

Shri Narayanasamy said that the historic RTI Act, 2005, has brought great transparency in governance. He said that we are taking further steps to improve RTI law to strengthen it to increase public disclosure, so that most of the information except national security and personal privacy related information would be in public domain.

In his Key note address, Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi, Judge, Supreme Court of India emphasized on reforms in the Public Services Commissions of the States and said that persons of impeccable integrity should be holding positions in such Boards. He said the Government must ensure that the matters like gratuity and pension etc are resolved in-house and such matters should not reach the Tribunals or the Courts. He called for evolving departmental mechanism which can address the employees’ grievances and thus help reducing burden of courts in service matters.

The Chairman of the CAT, Mr. Justice V.K. Bali said that the about 200 institutions/organizations have been notified resulting into manifold increase in the work of the various Benches of the CAT. But despite quantitative increase in the work, the Tribunals across the country have kept pace with disposal, he said.

Justice Bali informed that at the Principal Bench, the disposal rate is 100%. On an average, 91% cases of the Principal Bench have been upheld in the High Court and the position with regard to other Benches not much different, he said. Justice Bali said that the Tribunal has performed well quantitatively and qualitatively.

Earlier Shri L.K. Joshi, Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal delivered the Welcome Address and later Vote of Thanks was proposed by Shri K.V. Sachidanandan, also Vice-Chairperson.

The Administrative Tribunals in India were set up in 1985 and function from 17 Benches across the country. These Tribunals are unique in the sense that the Members of these Tribunals are both from the Administrative as well as Judicial side. Each Division Bench comprises of a judicial & administrative Member. The Administrative Tribunals in India are different from the Tribunals functioning in some other countries as the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) here was set up solely with the purpose of dealing with the cases relating to the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts under the control of the Government and thereby, reducing the burden of the High Courts to that extent.

The Conference being held is an Annual Conference which is generally held on 1st Nov every year as this was the day the CAT was established. It is attended by all the Members of the CAT where agenda items brought up by the various Members and other issues being faced by the Tribunal are discussed and recommendations of the Conference are sent to the Government for action. This year is being celebrated as the ‘Silver Jubilee” year of the setting up of the CAT.

Source;PIB
(Release ID :68423)

Read More »

New Registrar in CAT HQ

Shri M. Ramachandran assumed charge as Principal Registrar at the Head Quarters of the Central Administrative Tribunal at New Delhi yesterday. He had earlier served in various capacities in different departments of Government of India and had worked as Dy. Registrar and Joint Registrar of the Tribunal in Bombay Bench and as Registrar for many years in the Ernakulam Bench of the Tribunal. He holds Masters degree in History, Public Administration and Law.

Read More »

CAT refuses relief to member of Tax Tribunal

CAT refuses relief to member of Tax Tribunal

OBC reservation benefits will not apply for key posts of vice-president and president in the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) as the appointments are by way of promotions and not direct recruitments, the Central Administrative Tribunal has ruled.

The apex tribunal passed this ruling dismissing the plea of an ITAT member, Sunil Kumar Yadav, who had argued that he should be elevated as one of the vice-presidents under the 27 per cent reservation benefits applicable to OBC candidates.

He contended that since the appointment is by direct recruitment and is neither scientific nor technical in nature, quota laws should apply in this case.

Rejecting Yadav's plea, the Tribunal said as per rules, reservation will be applicable only for direct recruitment and not in case of promotion.

source; PTI

Read More »

Bogus certificate holder can be sacked: CAT

A person who obtains a job by submitting a false caste certificate neither has the right to continue in service, nor he deserves sympathy even if he has put in long years in the work, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.


“If a person gets appointment on a false caste certificate which is already cancelled by the authorities, then such a person has no right to continue in service. Such a person needs no sympathy or equity from the court on the ground that he has worked for long years,” CAT Members S Pandey and M Chibber said.


The tribunal passed the order on a petition filed by Shiv Kumar, a teacher of Kendriya Vidyalaya, Aligarh challenging his termination from service by the disciplinary authority without affording him an opportunity to defend himself and overlooking 14 years of service rendered by him.



Source: GServants

Read More »

CAT issues new order on pension

President cannot withhold pension or gratuity of a government official unless the charges framed against him come under the ambit of grave misconduct, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.

"Unless the language of the charge as framed or the enquiry report shows that the charge is of grave misconduct, the President cannot withhold pension or gratuity," the tribunal, comprising chairman V K Bali and vice-chairman L K Joshi, said.

The CAT passed the order on a petition filed by V T Prabhakaran, the retired scientist of Indian Agricultural Statistics Research Institute, challenging departmental proceedings and withholding of arrears benefit that was due to him after he retired on February 2009.

Prabhakaran was facing charges of posting objectionable material on the display board of the office and making false and baseless allegations against the director and other higher officials of IASRI.

"There is not even a whisper of the charges being of the nature of grave misconduct in the report of the inquiry officer," the tribunal said while quashing the departmental proceedings against the scientist.

The CAT observed that the material posted at the display board was picked up from newspapers and was already in public.

"The act of Prabhakaran may be uncalled for and not in good taste, yet it cannot be said to be an act of grave misconduct, which would merit withholding of pension or gratuity," the tribunal said.

Source:PTI

Read More »

Group D posts: CAT showcause to Railways

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has issued a showcause notice to the Indian Railway authorities on the issue of unexplained delay in completing procedures for appointment to Group D posts under the East Coast Railway division.

The Tribunal bench comprising Justices K Thankapan and CR Mohapatra has directed the Railways Secretary, the Chairman of Railway Board and the General Manager of ECoR to file their counters in eight weeks.

The directions came in response to a petition filed by one TR Barik and three others. They alleged that though the process for appointment to as many as 5,200 Group D posts under ECoR was initiated in 2006, it is yet to be completed due to the apathy of the authorities and thereby pushing the applicants into uncertain future.

The petitioners stated that advertisement for the posts was published on October 28, 2006 and written examinations were conducted in four phases in 2007.

The results were published in February 2008 and it was followed by physical tests in five phases.

After that the merit list should have been published and the final process of medical and document scrutiny carried out to give appointments to successful candindates. The process has stalled at that point. Thousands of candidates who had applied and appeared for the exams are still awaiting their final results.

While other divisions had already finished giving appointments for similar posts, the same is curiously being delayed here, the petitioners alleged.

Read More »

Govt cannot refuse NOC to employee on technical grounds: CAT

Government cannot refuse to give no objection certificate (NOC) to an employee on "vexatious technical grounds" if no public interest was involved, the Central Administrative Tribunal has said.

"Denial to grant NOC is not sustainable as it is not the case of Ministry of Defence that there is a shortage of officers and the applicant's departure would be greatly inconvenient...Neither public interest is pleaded nor could it be established," a bench of CAT, comprising Chairman V K Bali and Vice Chairman L K Joshi, said.

The tribunal passed the order on a plea filed by Satyam, Assistant Medical Officer working with the Ordnance Factory Hospital, which had rejected her application seeking permission to appear in an interview for the post of Insurance Medical Officer in Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC).

The Ministry had rejected Satyam's request on the ground that the last date of submission of application was over.

"The only claim of the Ministry is that the application was not submitted before the expiry of time for its submission to ESIC. This is merely a vexatious technical objection," the tribunal said.

Source:PTI

Read More »

AT gives relief to widow, asks DTC to grant family pension

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has come to the rescue of a widow by granting her family pension after noting that she was pursuing the matter relentlessly with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) after her husband died in 2005.

A tribunal bench, comprising vice-chairman M Ramachandran and member Shailendra Pandey, passed the order giving relief to the widow of Kalanath Sharma, who resigned from the corporation in 1990 but applied for pensionary benefit after the scheme came into force in 1992.

The DTC started the pension scheme for its employees in 1992 and there was a provision that those who retired after 1981 were eligible to opt for either pensionary benefit or PF. Kalanath had opted for pension.

The tribunal said that it was proved that the deceased had been pursuing the matter related to his pension continuously with the DTC and had even offered to return the contributory provident fund (CPF) to the corporation.

"There are circumstances sufficient to reveal that there was a conscious effort on the part of the employee concerned to claim his benefits. He had offered to pay back CPF benefits received. This supports our view that what was being pursued was not an empty claim," the CAT said.

The tribunal ordered DTC to treat Kalanath as a person who had opted for pension after his resignation, when the scheme had been brought into force.

Earlier, the corporation repudiated the claim of widow, saying that there was a difference between a retired employee and one who resigned from the post and thus Kalanath was not eligible for any pensionary benefit.

Read More »

Allahabad HC quashes CAT's order

The Allahabad High Court has quashed an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directed appropriate authorities to consider providing job to the petitioner, whose father died while working in a post office, on compassionate grounds.

Pronouncing the judgement, the Lucknown Bench of the Court observed yesterday: "People will lose faith in the administration of justice in case rightful claim is rejected only because of pendency of litigation in courts."

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devi Prasad Singh and Justice Anil Kumar passed the order on a petition filed by Awadhesh Kumar, whose father, a postman in UP's Barabanki district, died in harness on August 8, 2002.

In April 2004, the Competent Authority had rejected the application of the petitioner for providing employment on compassionate grounds.

The petitioner later filed an appeal before the Chief Post Master General (UP Circle), Lucknow.

When his appeal was not decided for over one year, he approached the CAT which dismissed his plea.

The petitioner moved the High Court in 2006 challenging the order of the CAT and the Competent Authority.

The Bench quashed the judgement of the CAT as well as the order passed by the Competent Authority.

The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for providing job on compassionate grounds.

Source:Zee News

Read More »

Govt can frame guidelines for DPCs: CAT

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that government can frame guidelines fodepartmental promotion committees (DPCs) and judiciary will not question its validity so long as it provides level playing field for all candidates.

"The government has a right to frame the guidelines for the DPCs and there cannot be any judicial interference in such case, unless the same are perverse or are drafted to favour a class of candidates," CAT Vice Chairman L K Joshi and Member Meera Chhibber said.

The tribunal passed the order on a plea of a Delhi police sub-inspector, challenging the promotions made on the basis of 2008 circular which issued guidelines for the DPC to promote eligible police personnel.

The sub-inspector, Ram Niwas, contended that DPC should have followed 2005 guidelines for promotions and not the 2008 guidelines which was issued after creation of vacancies.

Read More »

Promotion can't be stalled unless criminal charges framed: CAT

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held that the promotion of a government employee cannot be stalled if no charges are framed against him in a criminal case by a court.

"Promotion of an employee cannot be stalled by putting his (petitioner) case in a sealed cover unless, if the employee...is facing a criminal case, charge has been framed by the concerned criminal court," the Tribunal headed by Chairman Justice V K Bali said.

The Tribunal passed the order on a plea by Delhi-resident R P Singh, seeking to quash the order of the state government restraining him from getting the benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme to financially upgrade the careers of an employee after an interval of 12 and 24 years respectively.

"Singh was entitled to ACP benefit in 1990 and 2002 respectively. Registration of an FIR years and years after would not authorise the government to put his case under sealed cover," the CAT said while setting aside the order.

The Tribunal held that if Singh, working with the Social Welfare Department, would have been granted the benefit he was entitled to, registration of the case would not have resulted into withdrawing the same.

"The government is directed to make available to the petitioner both first and second financial upgradations under ACP scheme," the Tribunal said, adding that ACP is granted on same parameters on which promotion is granted.

Read More »

Govt employees near retirement should not be disturbed: CAT

Govt employees near retirement should not be disturbed: CAT

New Delhi, Sep 5 (PTI) The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that government employees on the verge of superannuation should not be disturbed merely because they have stayed for a considerably long period at a particular place.

The apex tribunal said that such a benefit should be extended to superannuating employees to retire peacefully at a particular place after years of dedicated service.

"Merely because the applicants have a long stay and the transfer order could not be implemented so far would not by itself constitute sufficient reason.

"There is an objective based on considerations of welfare behind such provision in the transfer policy as it would enable a person about to retire after a long and devoted service to make arrangements for settling down thereafter with his family, acquire a house if not already done," Member N D Dayal said.

Source: PTI

Read More »