S. Sadasivan Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Rep. By Its Chairman And Managing Director, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhavan, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 & Others.
.... cessing. Thereafter, by Annexure R3 instruction dated 18.12.2018, executives who had earlier opted for ‘I disagree’ were given one more opportunity to accept the GTI. However, the last date for option change was kept at 20.12.2018. It was specifically stated that the applicants were trying to mi ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Geeta Jayakumar Vs Union Of India Represented By The Secretary To The Government Of India, Ministry Of Law & Justice Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi-110001 & Others.
.... elay was occurred due to unintentional circumstances, which is not attributable to any specific act or omission on the part of the respondents. Referring to Rule 65 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, it is submitted that subject to the conditions, interest will be considered to be paid to the app ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Haresh Chand Agarwal & Ors. Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj. & Others.
.... and latches prevailing herein before pondering over the decision as to how much arrear payment is liable to be made in favour of the applicants. For the said purpose, it would be significant to straightway rely upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in its judgment dated 13.08.2008 passed in C ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Prem Nath Sharma Vs Delhi Transport Corporation Through Its Chairman I.P. Estate New Delhi-110002
.... contained in Clause 9 of the order dated 27.11.1992. He further argued that there is no dispute to the fact that the time to exercise option was never extended and, in this regard, he made reference to the order passed by this Tribunal in Chandar Ratan vs. DTC in O.A. No.2750/2022 dated 27.09.202 ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi
Supriya Guha Vs Union Of India, Represented By The Secretary, Department Of Agriculture & Co-Operation, Ministry Of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi � 110004 & Others.
.... additional financial upgradation for the senior employees on the ground that the junior employee in the grade has got higher pay/grade pay under the MACPS. 6. The gravamen of the contention of the 4th respondent herein was that Annexure A-2 was consequent to the order of the Tribunal grant ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Ernakulam Bench, Ernakulam
Asad Hussain Vs Union Of India & Others.
.... arguments put forth by the applicant’s counsel has been considered and cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the order dated 08.11.2023. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the scope for review of the order passed by this Tribunal is limited only on the grounds of (i) discovery ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Ashwani Kumar Vs Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of Expenditure, Govt. Of India, North Block, New Delhi110001 & Ors.
.... er (A) 1. When taken up, learned proxy counsel for the applicant states that she is withdrawing the preset Original Application. However, learned counsel for the respondents who appears on advance notice has objected to the maintainability of the present OA. 2. In view of this, the pr ...
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi
Kamruddin & Ors. Vs Union Of India Through The General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj. & Ors.
.... period of service with good conduct and efficiently in the last preceding year. It would 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 t ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Tarun Kumar Mishra, S/o Late Narbada Prasad Vs Union Of India Through The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi & Others
.... l by order dated 23.09.2008 directing the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. The respondent No. 3 has decided the representation of the applicant by the impugned order dated 25.03.2009, which was assailed in this O.A. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties ...
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
Raj Kumar Singh Vs Union Of India And Others
.... ma, counsel for the applicant. Shri S.C. Mishra, counsel for the respondents. 1. It is submitted by the applicant’s counsel that after several efforts he is not success to contact the applicant during the period of last eight years. Therefore, he does not having any instruction. 2 ...
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!