Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 83 (0.60 seconds)

Dilip Kumar vs Union Of India on 8 March, 2018

further alleged that the applicant has never worked as Gangman and was MRCL but had shown himself as Gangman under AEN (South) and has tried ... hand, IO has held the applicant was promoted as Gangman from MRCL on 9.12.1992 by AEN (South) Jhansi, which means that he has held that
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Saida Bi Sk Usman vs M/O Railways on 1 February, 2018

days, a temporary status of Monthly Rated Casual Labourer (for short 'MRCL') was conferred on him with effect from 19.03.1985. After rendering service ... they were informed that although the deceased employee was working as MRCL and expired on 02.06.1991, he remained absent from duty from 27.12.1986 till
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt Urmila vs General Manager N C Rly on 28 March, 2023

working as Monthly Rated Casual Labour (hereinafter will be denoted as MRCL) under Permanent Way Inspector (North), Lalitpur, Jhansi Division. It is stated that provident ... died on 5.10.1998 and who is similarly situated employee (working as MRCL). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A T Kadam vs M/O Railways on 13 November, 2018

applicant was initiaily appointed in Central Railway as Monthly Rated Casual Labour{(MRCL) on 04.01.1978 and worked upto 18.09.1983. His services were ... service register, he came to know that service rendered by him as MRCL/Temporary Service for. the period from 04.01.1978 to 18.09.1983 was not included
Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next