|
|
Database updates
Judgments
Anil Verma S/o Late M. L. Verma vs (1) Union of India through Ministry of Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise and Customs North Block, New Delhi Through its Secretary; (2) Chief Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal; (3) Commissioner Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal; (4) Additional Commissioner (P & V), Customs and Central Excise, Bhopal
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 16 May 2013]
|
Samer Singh vs Union of India and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 16 May 2013]
|
Kartar Singh vs Union of India and another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 16 May 2013]
|
Ramandeep Choudhary vs Union of India and others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
G. R. Gupta vs Lok Sabha Secretariat
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
Administrative - Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, s. 4 and 7(3) - Limitation Act, 1963 - Overstaying in Govt. house - Imposition of double licence fee - Maintainability - Petitioner was allotted bungalow while on deputation with Lok Sabha Secretariat from 14-2-1979 to 26-7-1982 - Petitioner was repatriated from Lok Sabha Secretariat on 25-7-1982, but he continued to occupy the house - Petitioner superannuated from Govt. service on 31-12-1993 - On 15-5-1996, he was appointed as Member of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum where he continued to work till 11-12-2000 - Vide communication dated 27-8-2001, Lok Sabha Secretariat informed the petitioner that the aforesaid house could have been retained by him only up to 02 months from the date of his repatriation and, therefore, his occupation with effect from 26-9-1982 was unauthorized and the allotment was deemed to have been cancelled with effect from that date - Petitioner was accordingly required to vacate the house and deposit market value with effect from 29-9-1982 till the vacation of the house - It was followed by reminders dt. 10-9-2001 and 20-9-2001 - House came to be vacated by the petitioner on 2-9-2001 and intimation in this regard was given by the petitioner to Lok Sabha Secretariat on 08-10-2001 - Estate Officer of Lok Sabha Secretariat issued notice to the petitioner u/s. 4 of 1971 Act followed by a notice u/s. 7(3) of the said 1971 Act and ordered payment of double licence fee for the extended period of 7 years in the house - On appeal Trial Court held that occupation of the petitioner, after expiry of two months from his repatriation from Lok Sabha Secretariat, was unlawful and unauthorized but ordered payment of damages only for the period commencing 08 months after his superannuation - Hence instant petition - Firstly, petitioner, in support of his contention stated that before levying damages, the occupant was first to be adjudged as unauthorized occupation of the public premises in question - It was contended by petitioner that the Estate Officer had no legal right to recover damages which had become time barred on the date reference was made to him by Lok Sabha Secretariat - Held, petitioner was found to be in unauthorized occupation of house in question since he continued to occupy the said house beyond two months from the date of his repatriation on 26-7-1982 and even after expiry of 08 months from the date of his superannuation from Govt. service on 31-12-1993 - Further, HC was in full agreement with the reasoning given by another HC and, therefore, held that the limitation prescribed under 1963 Act had no application to recovery of damages u/s. 7(2) of 1971 Act - Petition dismissed.
|
Tamil Nadu Cricket Association, Represented by its Honorary Secretary, K. S. Viswanathan, Chennai vs (1) State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Public Works Department, Chennai; (2) Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Chennai; (3) Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Kamla Devi and others vs Nagar Nigam, Lucknow Thr. Its Mukhya Nagar Adhikari and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Ram Dularey and others vs Assistant Director of Consolidation and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Radha Krishna Mahavidyalaya Thru Its Manager/Secretary vs State of Uttar Pradesh Thru Prin. Secy. Higher Education Uttar Pradesh and other
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Digvijay Singh vs Consalidation
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Babu Lal and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Prin. Secy. Home Deptt Lucknow and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Piccadily Holiday Resorts Ltd. Thru M.D. vs State of Uttar Pradesh Through Its Prin. Secy. Nagar Vikas Lucknow and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Ashok Kumar Lala vs North Delhi MunicipalCorporation, Delhi
[CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 14 May 2013]
|
Sahab Lal S/o Late Raghunath Prasad vs (1) Union of India through General Manager, NR, Baroda House, New Delhi; (2) DRM, N.R., Hazratganj, Lucknow; (3) Divisional Personnel Officer, N.R., Hazratganj, Lucknow
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 14 May 2013]
Service - Cancellation of selection process - Legality - In response to notification, being eligible, applicant applied for written test for the post of Instructors - Applicant was declared as successful in written examination - After Viva Voce, he was waiting for final result, but by means of impugned order this selection was cancelled for administrative reasons directing that De-novo selection shall be held from the stage of written test - Whether impugned order was liable to be quashed - Held, in view of Para 219 of IREM, this kind of selection, was supposed to be made in accordance with the recommendation of the Selection Board, but where such authority i.e. competent authority was unable to accept the recommendation, a reference had to be made to the General Manager, who may, if necessary constitute a fresh selection board at a higher level - In the instant case, after holding the Viva Voce examination, a panel had been drawn up and the recommendation of the Selection Board, was sent to the competent authority for its approval, but the competent authority, without referring it to the General Manager, if necessary, as per rules, itself issued the impugned order and cancelled the selection - Impugned order was passed against the rules without taking recourse to the due process under IREM - It was an order passed without application of mind and could not be sustained in the eyes of law - Impugned order quashed - Application allowed.
|
Ramsakha S/o Kalloo Prasad Patel vs (1) Union of India, through General Manager WC Railway, Jabalpur; (2) Divisional Railway Manager (P) WCR, Jabalpur; (3) Phool Singh S/o Jairam Yadav
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 14 May 2013]
Service - Financial upgradation - Entitlement to - Applicant submitted that he served the dept. for 36 years and therefore deserved higher financial upgradation under Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme (MACPS) - However, his application in this regard was rejected by the respondent No.2, on the ground that, since he already been given 3 promotions, during his service, he was not entitled to get 3rd financial upgradation under MACPS - Whether applicant deserves to get 3rd financial upgradation under MACPS - Held, as per the provisions of MACP scheme, only those promotions/upgradations, granted in the past, were to be ignored for which grades of promotion/ upgradations, now carry the same grade pay, due to merger of pay scales / upgradations of posts recommended by the 6th pay commission - In the instant case, all the three promotions of the applicant in the past, were on those grades which carry different grade pay now under 6th Pay Commission recommendation - Thus, these promotions could not be ignored as per the provisions of MACP scheme - No justification for interfering with the impugned order - Application dismissed.
|
Adesh Kumar Jain S/o Late Dhanna Lal Jain vs (1) Union of India, Through Assistant Director General (Training), Ministry of Communication, Dept. of Posts, New Delhi; (2) Chief Post Master General MP Circle, Bhopal; (3) Superintendent Head Post Office, Vidisha
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 14 May 2013]
Service - Regularisation - Entitlement - Applicant was working as part-time Mali since and was appointed through Employment Exchange - However, even after 23 years of continuous service, he had not been regularized by the respondents - Hence, instant application filed by applicant claiming regularization - Whether applicant was entitled for getting preferential treatment in the matter of recruitment to ED vacancies or GDS, as claimed by him - Held, applicant was given employment as part time casual labourer - Applicant nowhere claimed that the post of Part time mali held by him was a duly sanctioned post of regular establishment - Applicant was working on a part time temporary post, on which he was never given temporary status, as he was not covered by the scheme, issued by the dept. - Thus, the applicant failed to establish his entitlement for regularization on a Group D post - Application dismissed.
|
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs Raj Kumar and others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
Service - Administrative - Change in promotion policy - Sustainability - Recruitment Rules, framed in the year 1974, came to be amended on 12-8-1985 - 95% posts of Assistant Malaria Inspector were required to be filled by direct recruitment - Without challenging the Recruitment Rules as amended, respondents filed appeal pleading that as of the year 1974, 50% posts of Anti Malaria Inspector (Assistant Malaria Inspector) were to be filled up by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment - It was pleaded that the decree passed by the Sub Judge required 50% of the existing vacancies to be filled up by promotion - It was pleaded that promotions have been effected on 11-9-1990, 22-10-1997 and 30-9-1998 as per the Rules of 1974 and thereafter no promotions have been made - Pleading that in the year 1985 promotional quota was reduced to 5% it was pleaded that this caused resentment among the existing feeder cadre and that the Corporation had decided to amend the 1985 Rules to provide 30% quota to the promotes - Grievance was that till the decision to amend the Recruitment Rule notified in the year 1985 was given effect to by providing 30% quota for promotees, the Dept. should not fill up the existing vacancies for the reason 95% thereof would be filled by direct recruitment - Second grievance was to an educational qualification being prescribed even in the promotee quota i.e. the requirement of having a Sanitary Inspector Diploma - Though the claimants before the Tribunal did not bring out, it was apparent that the problem they were facing was not possessing the Sanitary Inspector Diploma because availing age relaxation they could compete amongst the direct recruits provided they had possessed the diploma - Relief sought was to quash the intended recruitment by resorting to direct recruitment - But surprisingly, as per prayer (B) a direction was sought that appointments should be as per the Rules of 1974 - Impunged order went in favour of respondents - Hence instant petition - Whether order of Tribunal that amendments to Recruitment Rules could not be made in a manner where promotional avenues were nullified, opining that such amendments would be hit by art. 16 of the Constitution of India was sustainable - Held, Tribunal could not have restrained MCD to fill up the vacant posts merely because an amendment was proposed to the Recruitment Rule - Thus, if the respondents had any grievance to the introduction of the term in the promotee quota of possessing a Sanitary Inspector Diploma, on properly constituting pleadings, a fresh of cause of action might be presented before the Tribunal and in said circumstance MCD would be entitled to justify the rationale for said decision - But, unless Govt. servant had an incentive to earn promotion, his performance would be lacking in motivation and this would be jeopardising public interest and hence the desirability to grant at least one, if not two promotions, to a Government servant are no longer applicable in the current regime since the year 1999 when, accepting the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission an Assured Career Progression Scheme was introduced by the Central Govt. which was adopted by the petitioner under which a Govt. servant, if could not earn a promotion within the first 12 years of joining service, became eligible to be granted an in situ promotion by being placed in the next above pay scale and upon no promotion being earned even after 24 years became entitled to another in situ promotion - With the acceptance of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme had given further benefit by providing for three in situ promotions upon completing 10, 20 and 30 years service - Petitioner was permitted to fill up the post of Assistant Malaria Inspectors as per the current Recruitment Rules and simultaneously reserving liberty for the respondents to challenge the Recruitment Rules as amended in the year 2010, but advising them to weigh the option whether or not to challenge the amendment keeping in view the benefits which have accrued to them firstly under the Assured Career Progression Scheme and secondly under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme - Petition disposed of.
|
Anju Kurar vs D. D. A
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 14 May 2013]
|
Ashok Kumar Lala vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation, Delhi
[CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 14 May 2013]
|
Rajesh Kumar, Kannauj vs LIC of India, Agra
[CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 13 May 2013]
|
T. K. Margaye vs Central Railway, Chief Personnel Officer, IR Mumbai
[CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION, 13 May 2013]
|
(1) Dhananjay Jadhav S/o Narayanrao Jadhav; (2). Dr. Yogendra Jhan S/o Late Shambhulal; (3) Dr. K. L. Dhurwey S/o Pardeshee vs (1). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director A-601, Statesman House, New Delhi; (2) Chief General Mnager BSNL, Telecom Factory Wright Town, Jabalpur
[CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, 13 May 2013]
|
Suresh Kumar vs Jokhu Ram
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 13 May 2013]
|
Ram Lakhan Singh vs D. D. A.
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 13 May 2013]
|
Suraj Bhan vs Assistant Deputy Director of Consolidation and others
[ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, 13 May 2013]
|
|