MACP benefits in the promotional hierarchy.
<< click here >. to download memo with Calcutta Court judgement.
<< click here >. to download memo with Calcutta Court judgement.
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Thursday, July 2, 2015
Hyderabad CAT case reg GP of Rs.5,400
Hyderabad CAT case i/c/w to grant GP of
Rs.5400/- after completion of 4 years in GP of Rs. 4800/-.
All are aware that 15 Gr. B Officers and
ASPs who have completed 4 years of service in Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/- of Andhra
Pradesh Circle has already filed OA No. 296 in Hon'ble CAT Hyderabad Bench on
17/3/2014. The applicants have stated in their OA that when a Gr. B officer
completes four years of regular service in the GP of Rs. 4800/- is eligible to
get GP of Rs.5400/-. While so, the applicants are holding Gr. B gazette post
(Offg. PS Gr. B and ASP cadre) and completed 4 years of regular service in the GP
of Rs. 4800/- and they are now eligible for financial upgradation in the GP of
Rs. 5400/-.
It is learnt that above OA posted to
14/7/2015 for hearing.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Gr B Exam on 03.06.12 - CAT Cases
CAT, Bangalore :
Bangalore CAT bench allowed the case of Ms Deepa K ASP Haveri Sub Division Haveri under OA No 232/2012. The interim order is provisionally permitted Ms Deepa K to appear for PSS Gr “B” examination to be held on 03.06.2012. She belongs to IP 2004 batch and joined as IP on 25.01.2006.
Source : IP ASP Karnataka Blog.
CAT, Ernakulam :
The Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench passed an interim order today in favour of the applicants in OA No. 380/12 filed by Sri. M.P.Ramesh and Smt. V.Sarada. The applicants had approached the Tribunal aggrieved by the stand taken by the Department that the IP induction training period cannot be taken into account for determining the length of service required for the PS Group B Examination. When the said OA came up for admission today (21.5.12), the Hon'ble Tribunal passed an interim order directing the respondents to admit the applicants provisionally for the PS Group B examination scheduled to be held on 3.6.12 and also to issue OMR applications to the applicants
Source : IP ASP Kerala Blog.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Sr PM - ChandigarhCAT Case
Sr. Postmaster CAT case came up for hearing today before the Hon'ble CAT bench Chandigarh. Department has filed written reply. The case has been adjourned to 24.5.2012
Source : IP ASP Punjab Blog.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
No recovery for Coop-society dues from DCRG
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 457 of 2009 Tuesday, this the 05th day of April, 2011
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph,
Administrative Member M. Nagammal, aged 65 years, W/o. Maran, Door No. 579, Jeevanadham Road, Kallukkadai Medu, Pudumai Colony, Erode-638 001. .....
Applicant (By Advocate - Mr. T.C.G. Swamy) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town, Chennai-3.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat. .....
Respondents (By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose)
This application having been heard on 16.03.2011, the Tribunal on 05.04.11 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
The applicant is a widow, the only person eligible to receive all the death benefits of her son, late Jaganathan, who died on 05.11.2005 in an accident while working in the Railway service. She was issued with a pension calculation sheet dated 18.04.2006 as at Annexure A-5 showing the amount of DCRG as Rs. 1,15,479/-.
Original Application No. 457 of 2009 Tuesday, this the 05th day of April, 2011
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph,
Administrative Member M. Nagammal, aged 65 years, W/o. Maran, Door No. 579, Jeevanadham Road, Kallukkadai Medu, Pudumai Colony, Erode-638 001. .....
Applicant (By Advocate - Mr. T.C.G. Swamy) Versus
1. Union of India, represented by the General Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Park Town, Chennai-3.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat Division, Palghat. .....
Respondents (By Advocate - Mr. Sunil Jacob Jose)
This application having been heard on 16.03.2011, the Tribunal on 05.04.11 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
The applicant is a widow, the only person eligible to receive all the death benefits of her son, late Jaganathan, who died on 05.11.2005 in an accident while working in the Railway service. She was issued with a pension calculation sheet dated 18.04.2006 as at Annexure A-5 showing the amount of DCRG as Rs. 1,15,479/-.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Court
Seniority not a fundamental right: Central Administrative Tribunal
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has said that public employees cannot claim seniority as a "fundamental right".
"As per the settled law, seniority is not a fundamental right of a public employee. It is only a civil right. There cannot be any change in this contrary to the principles of natural justice," the Tribunal bench, comprising Members Shanker Raju and Veena Chhotray, said.
The Tribunal said this while refusing to set aside an order by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) revising the seniority list of its junior stenographers, It dismissed the petition of junior stenographers seeking to quash the order of the civic agency which had revised their 1988 seniority list.
The Tribunal noted that seniority list of junior stenographers was revised in 2000 by the MCD after duly considering the objections invited by it after circulating a provisional seniority list.
"The revision of seniority list of 2000 had been preceded by circulation of a provisional seniority list and inviting the objections. Even though the applicants still insist that their objections had not been considered, this is not proved," it said.
The Tribunal rejected the plea of violation of natural justice of petitioners on the ground that no proof in the form of relevant document was produced in support of it.
The petitioners, M S Thakur and others, were aggrieved at the changes in the revised seniority list of 2000 and approached the Tribunal for relief.
Source: Indian Express
The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has said that public employees cannot claim seniority as a "fundamental right".
"As per the settled law, seniority is not a fundamental right of a public employee. It is only a civil right. There cannot be any change in this contrary to the principles of natural justice," the Tribunal bench, comprising Members Shanker Raju and Veena Chhotray, said.
The Tribunal said this while refusing to set aside an order by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi(MCD) revising the seniority list of its junior stenographers, It dismissed the petition of junior stenographers seeking to quash the order of the civic agency which had revised their 1988 seniority list.
The Tribunal noted that seniority list of junior stenographers was revised in 2000 by the MCD after duly considering the objections invited by it after circulating a provisional seniority list.
"The revision of seniority list of 2000 had been preceded by circulation of a provisional seniority list and inviting the objections. Even though the applicants still insist that their objections had not been considered, this is not proved," it said.
The Tribunal rejected the plea of violation of natural justice of petitioners on the ground that no proof in the form of relevant document was produced in support of it.
The petitioners, M S Thakur and others, were aggrieved at the changes in the revised seniority list of 2000 and approached the Tribunal for relief.
Source: Indian Express
Court
An article published by Shri S. Samuel, General Secretary, All India Association of Inspectors and ASPs is reproduced below for information.
Normally, any departmental examination for promotion is held every year depending upon year-wise vacancies so that the eligible candidate for a particular year vacancy would get opportunity to get selection for subsequent year vacancies. But disregarding all principles, the department conducted Group B examination by bunching of vacancies for four years viz. 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Our Association objected to it. But the Department did not heed. Some of IP/ASP filed cases before CAT Madras and CAT Patna and prayed for a stay order. The honourable CATs at that time rejected to pass stay order. Though the single selection for all the four years is prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidates the Department successfully conducted the examination. With a result many juniors who were not at all eligible for the vacancies of 2004, 2005 and 2006 were allowed to appear, got selected and promoted. Now many ineligible candidates are working as PS Group B officer. The CAT Madras passed an order in OA 64/08 and some of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:
“ 15. If the selection for promotion is based every year separately for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, depending upon year-wise vacancies, the eligible candidate for 2003 who did not get selection for the year vacancies, would get opportunity to seek selection for subsequent year vacancies and because of bunching of vacancies for all the four years and holding single selection is prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidate and such selection is detrimental to the eligible employees for whose purpose it has been intended. The respondents have not placed any instruction of guidelines in support their claim for holding the single selection by bunching of vacancies for 4 years or several years.
16. In view of such circumstances as discussed above, the decision to bunch the vacancies for all the four years together and holding a simple selection is discriminatory, arbitrary, unfair and also amounts to defect the selection.
17. In spite of objections raised by the applicants by way of representations an also by filing of this OA, the authorities have not taken any care and proceeded further in conducting examinations. The authorities have completed most of the selection procedure in conducting examination and also declared the result of the successful candidates in the written test.
18. In view of such circumstances, if this selection is restricted for the vacancies for the year 2003, no harm would be caused to any of the eligible candidates who faced the examination and selection for the year 2003 is held valid and the selection for the vacancies for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are held to be defective, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. Thus the claim of the applicants is allowed partly, directing the respondents to secure year-wise vacancies for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 in respect of promotion to the cadre of Postal Services Group B by preparing year-wise list of eligible candidates and also vacancies and thereafter hold fresh Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), restricting the present selection only for the year 2003.
19. In the result, the OA is partly allowed as above, with no order as to costs.”
Note:
What is the use of this order? The Department has deliberately conducted this examination. No relief was given by the CAT to affected candidates at that time. Selected candidates have now promoted and working in the higher posts. Justice is supposed to be delivered in time.
Justice delayed is Justice denied!
S.Samuel
General Secretary
Normally, any departmental examination for promotion is held every year depending upon year-wise vacancies so that the eligible candidate for a particular year vacancy would get opportunity to get selection for subsequent year vacancies. But disregarding all principles, the department conducted Group B examination by bunching of vacancies for four years viz. 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. Our Association objected to it. But the Department did not heed. Some of IP/ASP filed cases before CAT Madras and CAT Patna and prayed for a stay order. The honourable CATs at that time rejected to pass stay order. Though the single selection for all the four years is prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidates the Department successfully conducted the examination. With a result many juniors who were not at all eligible for the vacancies of 2004, 2005 and 2006 were allowed to appear, got selected and promoted. Now many ineligible candidates are working as PS Group B officer. The CAT Madras passed an order in OA 64/08 and some of the relevant paragraphs are reproduced below:
“ 15. If the selection for promotion is based every year separately for 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, depending upon year-wise vacancies, the eligible candidate for 2003 who did not get selection for the year vacancies, would get opportunity to seek selection for subsequent year vacancies and because of bunching of vacancies for all the four years and holding single selection is prejudicial to majority of the eligible candidate and such selection is detrimental to the eligible employees for whose purpose it has been intended. The respondents have not placed any instruction of guidelines in support their claim for holding the single selection by bunching of vacancies for 4 years or several years.
16. In view of such circumstances as discussed above, the decision to bunch the vacancies for all the four years together and holding a simple selection is discriminatory, arbitrary, unfair and also amounts to defect the selection.
17. In spite of objections raised by the applicants by way of representations an also by filing of this OA, the authorities have not taken any care and proceeded further in conducting examinations. The authorities have completed most of the selection procedure in conducting examination and also declared the result of the successful candidates in the written test.
18. In view of such circumstances, if this selection is restricted for the vacancies for the year 2003, no harm would be caused to any of the eligible candidates who faced the examination and selection for the year 2003 is held valid and the selection for the vacancies for 2004, 2005 and 2006 are held to be defective, arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. Thus the claim of the applicants is allowed partly, directing the respondents to secure year-wise vacancies for the years 2004, 2005 and 2006 in respect of promotion to the cadre of Postal Services Group B by preparing year-wise list of eligible candidates and also vacancies and thereafter hold fresh Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), restricting the present selection only for the year 2003.
19. In the result, the OA is partly allowed as above, with no order as to costs.”
Note:
What is the use of this order? The Department has deliberately conducted this examination. No relief was given by the CAT to affected candidates at that time. Selected candidates have now promoted and working in the higher posts. Justice is supposed to be delivered in time.
Justice delayed is Justice denied!
S.Samuel
General Secretary