Employees may not be able to challenge CAT judgement in SC

Employees may not be able to challenge CAT judgement in SC



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 judgement 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 judgement 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 judgements 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 judgement, 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

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.

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

Setting up of Kerala Administrative Tribunal

No. A-11014/9/2009-AT

Government of India

Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

(Department of Personnel & Training)

*****

New Delhi, the 30/31^th August, 2010

To
The Chief Secretary

Government of Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala

Subject:      Setting up of Kerala Administrative Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act,1985

Sir,

      I am directed to forward herewith a copy of the Notification G.S.R. No.705(E) dated 25^th August, 2010 regarding setting up of Kerala Administrative Tribunal under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.

Yours faithfully,

s/d

(A.K. patney)

Under Secretary to the Government of India

www.persmin.nic.in

CAT sets aside suspension of IPS officer

CAT sets aside suspension of IPS officer



A week ago, the central administrative tribunal (CAT) set aside the suspension of controversial IPS officer A K Jain, saying, continuance of his suspension beyond September 15, 2000, was illegal, since the home department did not follow the procedure laid down under the (AISDA)—All-India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.



“For continuing the suspension, reasons have to be recorded in writing. In the present case, the competent authority has not separately recorded the reasons......under these circumstances, we are constrained to observe that Jain has been kept under illegal suspension, we direct the home department to reinstate him in service with retrospective effect. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits,’’ Sudhakar Mishra, CAT member, said in his 19-page order.



The CAT order is being viewed as a major setback for high-profile home minister R R Patil, who has vowed to take on corrupt police officials. A month ago, suspension of a senior IPS official was invoked after the home department failed to complete a departmental probe within the stipulated time, while there was no response from the Centre on Patil’s plea to compusorily retire four senior IPS officials.



A K Jain, an IPS officer of the 1982 batch, was additional commissioner of police, central region, in 2000. Then, following a complaint lodged by police inspector Sanjiv Kokil, an offence was registered against Jain under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Following his arrest, Jain was suspended on June 17, 2000, by invoking the provisions of the AISDA. Jain’s suspension was continued through intermittent orders for the same.



Jain’s contention was that his suspension beyond September 16, 2000, was illegal, in view of the provisions under Section 3(8) of the AISDA rules, which states an order of suspension, which has not been extended, shall be valid for a period not exceeding 90 days and if there was a review, it must be before the day of expiry. In case of Jain, the suspension order was not reviewed on or before September 19, 2000, but it was reviewed few weeks thereafter, as such continuance of suspension beyond September 19, 2000, was invalid and illegal.



Further, Jain also submitted that as per the amended AISDA rules, the period of suspension on charges of corruption shall not exceed two years and the inquiry shall be completed within two years. However, the suspension can be continued beyond two years only on the recommendation of the central ministry’s review committee.

Source: Times of India

CAT pulls up DTC for dismissing employee unfairly

Central Administrative Tribunal(CAT) pulls up DTC for dismissing employee unfairly




The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has rapped the DTC for terminating the services of a driver on medical grounds, though he had performed the job for over 23 years with the same disability.



The CAT wondered how the corporation could terminate the services of Munshi Lal who had a clean track record despite driving the vehicle without an index finger.



"It is very strange that the driver whose injured index finger (which was amputated) has not come in the way of efficient discharge of duties from 1982 to 2005 for which there is no complaint...on record... yet on the same alleged disability holding him unfit to perform duty on re-employment upto 60 years, when the position has not been altered, the DTC has not acted fairly," the Tribunal said.

Central Administrative Tribunal order checks bias in Income Tax department

CAT order checks bias in I-T dept



In a ruling aimed at checking bias in departmental promotions, the Central Administrative Tribunal has said if a Departmental Promotion Committee goes against the entries in an employee’s Annual Confidential Reports, the panel must give reasons for its decision.



A CAT bench said: “The DPC, as per DOP&T instructions may make its own assessment on the basis of entries in the ACRs and may not be guided merely by the overall grading. However, in cases where the assessment by DPCs are apparently not in line with the gradings in the ACRs, the DPC should appropriately substantiate its assessment...”



The ruling came on a petition filed by an income tax commissioner, who was ignored for promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of I-T even as his juniors made it to the post.



This was despite the fact that D. K. Singh, Commissioner of Income Tax (appeal-IV), M.G. Road, Chennai had the prescribed benchmark (very good) in all the ACRs under consideration.



Singh, an Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) Officer of 1977 batch, enjoyed excellent service record.



However, the DPC held on October 23, 2009 did not recommend Singh for promotion. Copies of his ACRs (2003-04 to 2007-08) revealed his reporting officer had given adverse remarks, which was corrected by the reviewing officer, who graded him as ‘very good’.



Singh, who had always been graded ‘very good’ in the ACRs preceding and succeeding the year 2005-06, submitted that “if one were to go by the remarks of the reporting officer, there is sudden sharp decline in the personal traits and skills of the applicant for the year 2005-06 ....Sharp fluctuations are not possible ... rather suggest bias and malice ....”



Singh alleged that the DPC went by assessment of the reporting officer and ignored the report made by the reviewing officer. As per the SC rulings adverse remarks in ACRs have to be communicated to employee concerned.



The CAT said: “Assuming that the reporting officer would have graded the applicant (Singh) only as ‘good’ because of some adverse remarks given by him, the same stood overruled by the reviewing officer. Though such was the position, the DPC could still take its own view and overrule the grading done by the reporting or the reviewing officer. For that, it was required to record reasons.”



The CAT pointed out that there was not a word mentioned as to why Singh had been found ‘unfit’. “There is not even a mention that ACR of the applicant ... would be considered only as good going by the adverse remarks given by the reporting officer, least the preference between the two gradings done by the reporting and the reviewing officer,” it noted.



“Present is not a case of the reporting officer giving over all grading of ‘good’ to the applicant for the year 2005-06... he has not graded the applicant at all,” the CAT pointed out.



Allowing Singh’s plea, the CAT directed the department of revenue, department of personnel and training and the UPSC to convene a review DPC for considering his case for promotion to the post of chief commissioner of I-T, as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of two months.



“In case the review DPC assesses the applicant fit for promotion, he would be promoted from the date persons junior to him were promoted, with all ...benefits,” the CAT ordered.



Source: Hindustan Times

CAT gives relief to archaeologist

CAT gives relief to archaeologist



The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has given relief to a suspended superintending archaeologist who was accused of taking bribe by setting aside extension of his suspension order beyond 90 days. The Tribunal said the Ministry of Culture extending suspension order of Phanikant Mishra, superintending archaeologist of Patna, was illegal as it was done beyond the mandatory period of 90 days.



The CAT, however, said the government can again keep the officer under suspension if required after assessing the facts of the case. "The facts of this case are such that if the government may, on assessment of the facts, come to the conclusion that the applicant needs to remain under suspension, in our considered view, it would be at liberty to do so," the Tribunal, headed by Chairman V K Bali, said.



The Tribunal also directed that the officer would be entitled to his pay and other emoluments after his suspension period is over. "The order dated April 27, 2010 reviewing suspension of the applicant shall have to be set aside.



Resultantly, he would be entitled to his pay and other emoluments from expiry of 90 days from the date of his suspension, that is, December 12, 2008," the CAT, also comprising Member Shailendra Pandey, said. The Tribunal passed the order on a petition of Mishra seeking to set aside his suspension order on the ground that it was illegal as its review could not be done within a period of 90 days.



The Ministry of Culture had defended its decision to keep the officer under suspension by contending that it would not be desirable for a person, who is facing criminal charges, to be in active service. Mishra, meanwhile, said that the order of suspension would not be valid after a period of 90 days unless it was extended after review for a further period of 90 days.



The CBI had allegedly caught Mishra accepting a bribe of Rs 90,000.

Give serious thought before censuring: CAT to cops

Give serious thought before censuring: CAT to cops


The Central Administrative Tribunal has asked Delhi Police to give a "serious thought" before censuring an officer as it could negatively affect his promotion prospects.



"Even though, there are instructions to state that unless the censures may be on the allegations of corruption and moral turpitude, the same may not be taken into consideration in case of promotion, but the law that has evolved is that overall service record is relevant for the purpose.



"That being so, while proposing to visit a police officer with the penalty of censure, the concerned authority is to give serious thought," the Tribunal bench, comprising Chairman V K Bali and Vice Chairman L K Joshi, said.

Illiteracy no excuse to challenge birth date after years: CAT

Illiteracy no excuse to challenge birth date after years: CAT


The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that illiteracy of an employee cannot be a ground for challenging the correctness of his or
her date of birth in office records after a considerable time period.



The Tribunal dismissed a petition, refusing relief to a woman employee of MCD who challenged an office order of 2000 in which her date of birth was changed.



"Even if the applicant could not read the office order, it was expected of her to have it understood through some literate person. By keeping quiet and not raising any objection, she has in fact acquiesced the alteration in the date of birth," the Tribunal said.



It said the application regarding the correctness and validity of change in the date of birth should have been filed within one year from the date the office order.



"Except that she is illiterate, no plausible explanation has been given by her as to what prevented her to challenge the office order in time," the Tribunal said.



It said the application was time-barred. "The applicant cannot revive the period of limitation on the ground of her retirement based on such date of birth which was duly recorded in the service records. What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly," the Tribunal said.



Earlier, the MCD contended that the change in date of birth made in 2000 cannot be allowed to be challenged at the time of her retirement in 2008 when all these years she kept quiet and did not raise any objection.



The applicant, Laxmi Bai, said she was illiterate and did not understand the order of 2000 served upon her.



The Tribunal did not agree with her contention and dismissed the petition.



According to her affidavit, her date of birth is July 15, 1948 which had been altered to July 15, 1950 in the official records in 2000 on the basis of medical certificate.

Source: Economic Times

Two Vacancies of Administrative Members in the Central Administrative Tribunal, one each at the Ahmedabad and Patna Bench

  

D.O. N0.A-11013/9/2010-AT

  

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL 8 TRAINING

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

NORTH BLOCK. NEW DELHI-110001

Website : hnpliwww.persmin.nic.in

  

20th April, 2010

  

Applications are invited from suitable eligible officers for two
vacancies of Administrative Members in the Central Administrative
Tribunal, one each at the Ahmedabad and Patna Bench.
  

2. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 got amended by the
Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006. As per sub-sections (2)
and (3) of Section 8 of the Act:

  

"(2) A Member shall hold office as such for a term of five years
from the date on which he enters upon his office extendable by one
more term of five years:

  

Provided that no Member shall hold office as such after he
has attained the age of sixty-five years.

  

(3) The conditions of service of Chairman and Members shall be
the same as applicable to Judges of the High Court."

  

3. The eligibility conditions as per Sub-section 2(a) of Section 6 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 as amended by the Administrative
Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 (No. 1 of 2007) provides that-
  

"(2) A person shall not be qualified for appointment,-

  

(a) as an Administrative Member, unless he has held for at
least two years the post of Secretary to the Government of India or
any other post under the Central or State Government and carrying,
the scale of pay which is not less than that of a Secretary to the
Government of India for at least two years or held a post of Additional
Secretary to the Government of India for at least five years or any
other post under the Central or State Government carrying the scale
of pay which is not less than that of Additional Secretary to the
Government of India at least for a period of five years;"

  

Provided that the officers belonging to All-lndia services who
were or are on Central Deputation to a lower post shall be deemed to
have held the post of Secretary or Additional Secretary, as the case
may be, from the date such officers were granted proforma promotion
or actual promotion whichever is earlier to the level of Secretary or
Additional Secretary, as the case may be, and the period spent on
Central deputation after such date shall count for qualifying service
for the purposes of this clause;"

  

4. For the Administrative Members already working in CAT/SATs
who want to apply afresh, Section 10A of the Administrative Tribunals
Act, 1985 as inserted by the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act,
2006 provides that-

  

"10A. The Chairman and Member of a Tribunal appointed before
the commencement of the Administrative Tribunals (Amendment) Act,
2006 shall continue to be governed by the provisions of the Act, and
the rules made there-under as if the Administrative Tribunals
(amendment) Act, 2006 had not come into force:

  

Provided that, however, such Chairman and the Members
appointed before the coming into force of Administrative Tribunals
(Amendment) Act, 2006, may on completion of their term or attainment
of the age of 65 or 62 years, as the case may be, whichever is earlier may,
if eligible in terms of Section 8 as amended by the Administrative
Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 2006 be considered for a fresh appointment
in accordance with the selection procedure laid down for such
appointments subject to the condition that the total term in office of the
Chairman shall not exceed five years and that of the Members, ten
years."

  

Current Members, who are finishing their term between 1st July
and 31s' December, 2010, would be eligible to apply if fulfilling the other
conditions.

  

The candidature of eligible Members of the CAT/SATs willing to be
considered for a fresh appointment may accordingly be recommended by
the Chairman, CAT/ SATs.

  

5. It is requested that this circular be given vide publicity and names
of such eligible officers who are willing to be considered for the post of
Administrative Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal may be
forwarded' along with their applications in the prescribed proforma
(attached). While forwarding the applications, the following points may
be kept in mind:-

  

(i) Quasi judicial experience with knowledge and experience in
dealing with service matters and laws would be essential.

  

(ii) It should be clearly stated that the officer(s) islare clear from
vigilance angle. In case any penalty had been imposed in
the past against any officer under the relevant Service Rules,
the details of the same may also be furnished.

  

(iii) Original CR dossiers, failing which certified copies of
Confidential Reports for the last ten years in respect of
recommended officers, may also be sent positively along with
the applications.

  

(iv) Interested officers may also send advance copies of their
applications. However, advance copies of the applications
would be considered only if the actual applications are later
received with all the above necessary requirements from the
cadre controlling authorities.

  

(v) The applications should reach the Secretary, Department of
Personnel and Training, North Block, New Delhi - 110001 on
or before 07.06.2010. It will not be possible to consider
avplications received after the due date.

  

6. The Central Administrative Tribunal has seventeen regular
Benches across the country. The appointment in the Central
Administrative Tribunal shall carry an All India transfer liability. The
selected persons are liable to be posted to any place having a Bench of
the Central Administrative Tribunal depending on the availability of the
vacancies / exigencies of work.

  

7. It has also been our experience in the past that sometimes persons
selected for appointment seek extension of time on one pretext or the
other and quite often decline to join later. It is made clear that persons
selected would have to join within three weeks from the date of issue of
appointment order failing which the appointment would be cancelled.

  

With regards,


Yours sincerely,

(Shandu Consul)

Click here to get application form...

CAT refuses to give relief to Delhi Police officer

CAT refuses to give relief to Delhi Police officer



The Central Administrative Tribunal has refused to give relief to a Delhi Police sub-inspector, whose one year of service was forfeited after he was found guilty of dereliction of duty.


"If there is some evidence against the SI, which has not been rebutted and a clear finding has been recorded by the inquiry officer, it is neither a case of 'no evidence' nor 'no misconduct', the Tribunal bench, comprising members Veena Chhotray and Shanker Raju, said.



"Accordingly, on proper procedure followed by the Delhi Police, he has been rightly held guilty and punished," it said.



The CAT passed the order on a plea of Dinesh Kumar, challenging the Delhi Police decision to forfeit his one year of approved service temporarily for not properly investigating a case of theft entrusted to him.


Source:PTI

Former V-C's wife asked to return house rent allowance

Former V-C's wife asked to return house rent allowance



Vrinda Khole, wife of former vice-chancellor (V-C) of Mumbai University Vijay Khole, has moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) against an order passed by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) asking her to return the amount she earned as House Rent Allowance (HRA) between May 20, 2005 and September 27, 2009.



The government on January 12 had sent her a recovery notice, seeking back the amount of Rs5.01 lakh, as she was residing with her husband at the V-C’s bungalow, the official residence at Kalina campus.



A single member bench of Jog Singh issued the notice and sought its reply. “The respondents have been granted time till April 30 to file their reply,” said Khole’s advocate Sandeep Marne.



Vrinda Khole had joined the National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health (formerly known as Institute for Research in Reproduction) as research officer on January 2, 1985.



She was promoted as senior research officer on July 1, 1990 and at the post of deputy director (known as Scientist ‘F’) from July 1, 2005. She is due to retire on April 30, 2014.



Vrinda moved in to the V-C’s official residence after her husband Vijay Khole was allotted a bungalow in Kalina campus in May, 2005.



She was still earning the HRA. The ICMR asked for the HRA paid to her as she was living in a government accommodation.


Source: DNA India

Don't dismiss personnel while appeal is pending: CAT

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL:



Don't dismiss personnel while appeal is pending:



The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has advised the Delhi Police against terminating services of personnel who are already convicted for an offence but whose appeals are still pending before higher courts.



The Tribunal passed the order while giving relief to a former Delhi Police constable, convicted in 2007 by a lower court but was granted bail by the Delhi High Court in 2009.



"Normally, a person who is undergoing imprisonment, will not be entitled to get reinstatement, as the two concepts do not go together. But that does not automatically mean that the Deputy Commissioner or Joint Commissioner were within their rights, to pass orders terminating the services of the applicant on the basis of the conviction, when an appeal was pending before the High Court," the Tribunal said.

Seniority not a fundamental right: CAT

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

Targets set up by cat benches to dispose pending cases

Targets set up by cat benches to dispose pending cases




The number of cases filed in Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has been increasing during the recent past. During the period July, 2007 to December, 2008 a number of corporations/societies and other authorities were brought within the jurisdiction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which raised the number of autonomous bodies/corporations/societies owned or controlled by the Central Government from 47 to 191. As a result, a few thousand cases were transferred from various High Courts and other Subordinate Courts to the respective Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal and this is one of the reasons for increase in the number of cases registered in the Tribunal.



The number of cases filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal, increased and there was corresponding increase in the rate of disposal of cases, and overall pendency has been under control. As on January 31, 2010, pendencey in respect of all the Benches of the Tribunal is 22440. During the year, 1824 cases were instituted and 1911 were disposed. For 2009, 24496 cases were instituted, 23681 were disposed and 22527 were pending.



The following steps have been taken to clear the pending cases:



(i) Monthly Pendency report is called for from all the benches of Central Administrative Tribunal and the rate of disposal is personally monitored by the Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal



(ii) Targets are set up by the Chairman for the Benches.



(iii) During the All India Conference 2009, the Benches were advised to give priority to disposal of old cases pending since 2004 to 2007.



This information was given by the Minister of State in the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Shri Prithviraj Chavan in written reply to a question in Lok Sabha today.

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.

'VRS: Disentitled staff can't claim pension'

An employee cannot claim pension if he opts for voluntary retirement scheme underwhich he is disentitled for the same, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.



The tribunal passed the order while hearing a bunch of petitions from the employees of Delhi Transport Corporation, seeking pension from the corporation which was denied to them after they had opted for VRS between 1993 and 1995.



DTC had introduced a pension scheme for its employees in 1992, which could not be operationalised till 1995.



Meanwhile, in 1993, a VRS scheme was introduced by the corporation asking desirous employees to apply within 15 days.



The scheme was again offered to employees in 1994 and 1995 respectively.



While the 1993 VRS categorically said that the benefit of pension would be available to employees opting for it, the subsequent schemes contained clauses clearly denying the benefit of pension to workers opting retirement.



The CAT ordered the corporation to release the pension of three employees -- Jag Shoran, Zile Singh and Madhu Bhushan Anand, who had opted for VRS in 1993, when the benefit of pension was then available to the employees.



Source:PTI

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.

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