Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (2.31 seconds)
Documents citing G. Perumal, K. Ramu, M. Kannan, M. ... vs Union Of India (Uoi), Rep. By Director ... on 27 March, 2002

A Badusha Maideen vs M/O Communications on 28 November, 2023

Postmaster/Assistant Sub-Postmaster, (BCR SPM). They were granted TBOP & BCR accordingly. The Postal Assistant is the feeder cadre to the next higher grade of LSG, HSG-II & HSG-1. After Introduction of the TBOP & BCR scheme, the Postal Department kept in abeyance in giving promotion to the eligible officials to the cadre of LSG because the pay of the cadre of TROP & LSG is one and the same. The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR 'eh 16 of 28 officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I In the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in the promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-IIl. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K. Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras "in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Ramapandian vs M/O Communication & It on 3 February, 2023

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Arokiam vs D/O Post on 3 February, 2023

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG- II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

L Dhanaraj vs M/O Communication & It on 3 February, 2023

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of 6 OA 560/2016 LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG- II. Hence the applicant is also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicant also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

C Amirthalingam vs M/O Communication & It on 3 February, 2023

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG- II. Hence the applicant is also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the 7 OA 747/2016 said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicant also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M Shanmugam vs M/O Communication & It on 3 February, 2023

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Kalaivanan vs M/O Communication & It on 8 January, 2024

- been introduced. In all consequences, the respondents have been indicating that the TBOP/BCR is a promotion. Therefore, it is the _Stand of the applicant that now they cannot modify their stand to state that these two promotions are only financial upgradation and not promotion in the sense of the term(sic). The applicant retired while working as Deputy Postmaster Higher Selection Grade I (officiating) HSG-I. He was granted TBOP & BCR accordingly. The Postal Assistant is the feeder cadre to the next higher grade of LSG, HSG-II & HSG-I. After introduction of the ' TBOP & BCR scheme, the Postal Department kept in abeyance 6 of 12 in giving promotion to the eligible officials to the cadre of LSG because the pay of the cadre of TROP & LSG is one and the same. The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience _were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 arid 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in the promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-II. Hence the applicant is also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years _of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicant also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S Balasubramanian vs M/O Communication & It on 19 March, 2024

Postmaster, (BCR SPM). They were granted TROP & BCR accordingly. The Postal Assistant is the feeder cadre to the next higher grade of LSG HSG-II & HSG-I. After introduction of the TBOP & BCR scheme, the Postal Department kept in abeyance in giving promotion to the eligible officials to the cadre of LSG because the pay of the cadre of TBOP & LSG is one and the same. The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-I in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

P Paramasivam vs D/O Post on 19 March, 2024

The pay for the BCR & HSG-II is one and the same and these facts have not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. It is to be noted that the promotion to the cadre of LSG was kept in abeyance by the department for a very long time. Therefore, the BCR officials having three years experience were posted to work as HSG-] in the promotional cadre vide letter dated 05.07.2004 and 20.11.2006 respectively and thereafter the minimum requirement of three years service is reduced. It is very clear from the letter dated 20.11.2006 that the BCR/LSG officials were posted in t he promotional cadre of HSG-I on adhoc basis till recruitment rules were notified to the cadre of HSG-I. Therefore, the services rendered in the capacity of BCR is equivalent to HSG-II. Hence the applicants are also entitled to advance the BCR benefits on completion of 26 years of service in the light of the judgment rendered by this Hon. Tribunal in the matter of K.Perumal & another Vs. UOI in OA 67/2003 decided on 19.03.2004. The order passed by this Tribunal in the said case has been upheld by the Hon'ble High court of Madras in WP. 27062/2004 and the same has attained finality. The applicants also relied upon the order passed by the Cuttack Bench of CAT in OA 1194/2004 & 1213 to 1221/2004. It is to be noted that while considering the issue in respect of the claim of the applicants therein, the Cuttack Bench of this Tribunal considered the judgment passed by this Tribunal as well as the judgments passed by the Principal bench and categorically stated as under:
Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next