Suresh N.S Vs Union Of India, Represented By Secretary To Government Of India, Ministry Of Communications, Department Of Posts North Block, New Delhi � 110001 & Ors
.... mber J 1. When the case was taken up for consideration today, Adv.Ms.Elizabeth.V.Joseph representing Adv.Smt.Rekha Vasudevan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Original Application is not being pursued. 2. Recording the above submission, Original Application is closed. ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Dr. Sohail Malik Vs Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
.... e competent authority is well within its right to change the headquarters of the applicant as he, being a Group-A officer, is having All India transfer liability. There is no mala fide intention involved in changing the headquarters of the applicant nor has the applicant alleged the same. 1 ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi
K.A Harilal & Ors Vs Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Defense New Delhi-110001 & Ors
.... ages in the revised running pay bands……………..” 12. When such benefit was denied to the Technical Officers of the MES, they approached the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal and in Annexure-A1 order, their applications were allowed and benefits were granted to them. The applicants claim that they ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Vijay Kumar Vs Union Of India & Ors
.... B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J) 1. None for applicant. Shri Bablu Singh, counsel for respondents. 2. No one is appear on behalf of the applicant even in the revised call. The case is listed for final argument. Therefore, the OA No.165 of 2016 is dismiss ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
T.Christopher Vs Deputy Director General Regional Training Institute All India Radio, Vazhuthacaud Thiruvananthapuram � 695014 & Ors
.... line already fixed 7. I heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri.Vishnu S Chempazhanthiyil and Shri.N.Anilkumar, the learned Senior Panel Counsel. 8. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there are materials to say that the applicant is being engaged from 19 ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Sathyanarayanan K, S/o Late Govindan Nair K Vs Union Of India Represented By Its Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Defence New Delhi- 110001 & Ors
.... 1. On the other hand, according to the learned Standing Counsel, the applicant was transferred from Thirunelveli to Ezhimala by the order of the 3rd respondent and at that time he had no complaint that the 3rd respondent was not competent. Before issuing Annexure-A1 a warning list was published, ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Gopi V.N & Ors Vs Union Of India, Represented By Its Secretary & Director General, Department Of Posts Dak Bhavan, New Delhi � 110001 & Ors
.... axation. In the light of the above, the Original Application is sought to be dismissed. 4. Heard the learned counsel on both sides. 5. Evidently, the applicant nos.1 to 5 had commenced service in the GDS cadre and later were appointed in the Postal Service during 2009-2010, long after ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Mahesh Autar Vs Union Of India Through Its Secretary Ministry Of Communication, Department Of Post Dak Bhawan Sansad Marg New Delhi & Ors
.... ashing the impugned recovery order. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and stated that while working at the Head Post Office Moradabad from December 1998 to February 1999 as Assistant Post Master, the applicant committed ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Satya Pal Singh S/o Ganga Singh Vs Union Of India Through The Principal Secretary Ministry Of Communications, Department Of Posts New Delhi. & Ors
.... ntment and Allowances of Officers of the Indian Posts and Telegraphs Department contended that he is entitled for all retiral benefits as may be admissible to comparable staff in the regular group ‘D’ employee. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments - “(i) O.A N ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Ashok Kumar & Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors
.... uld be punishing a person for no fault of him. As observed hereinabove, the increment can be withheld only by way of punishment or he has not performed the duty efficiently. Any interpretation which would lead to arbitrariness and/or unreasonableness should be avoided. If the interpretation as s ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Get In Touch With Us
We are here to help. Want to learn more about our services? Please get in touch, we'd love to hear from you!