Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 152 (0.69 seconds)
Documents citing Brahmdeo Ojha, Kashi Nath Sen, Girija ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 12 September, 2003

Kashi Nath Prasad vs Union Of India on 1 December, 2025

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00358/2016 Kashi Nath Prasad Vs. UOI & Ors. 8.2 The respondents are directed to communicate the APARs relevant for considering grant of 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of service, i.e., with effect from 24.04.2010 to the applicant within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and afford opportunity to the applicant to make representation against assessment recorded in the APARs concerned within a fortnight of such communication. The respondents are further directed to consider and decide the applicant's representation on assessment recorded in APARs within two months of its receipt.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ravi Kant Pandey vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited on 1 May, 2024

4. The respondents, on the other hand, state that Shri Shyam Kumar Gupta (SW-3) agreed that the contents of his statement are correct. Ample opportunity was given to the applicant to reply to the reasoned disagreement with the enquiry's finding recorded by the disciplinary authority. It is only when the applicant failed to submit Page 2 of 7 CAT,Lucknow Bench OA No. 332/00455 of 2013 R.K. Pandey Vs. U.O.I. &Ors. failed to submit his representation after lapse of considerable time, the order imposing punishment was passed after giving last opportunity.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sharda Prasad Singh vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2025

CAT, Lucknow Bench O.A. No. 332/00037/2017 Sharda Prasad Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. 7.1 In view of the foregoing, the impugned orders dated 04.02.2013, 16.01.2014 and 23.12.2016 are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant with effect from the date of acquittal with consequential benefits on notional basis as per the extant rules within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajendra Kumar Pandey vs M/O Railways on 26 November, 2025

4. Per contra, the respondents state that though the applicant qualified in the written test and was found medically fit, his viva voce could not be conducted due to investigation by the vigilance organization which was concluded vide letter dated 12.03.2015 with the finding that the "investigation has revealed that the lapses noticed in the case have not affected the final result of the examination, further action may be taken by the Administrative Department in light of the vigilance findings." It is stated that, accordingly, the selection procedure was continued and viva voce was fixed on 10.04.2015 and the applicant was empanelled to the post of APO vide letter dated 16.04.2015. The respondents contend that Gautam Sharma (supra) is not relevant to the applicant's case.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajesh Kumar Rai vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 16 February, 2021

It would be pertinent to note that pay fixation matters, like the one under consideration are governed by Page 6 of 7 CAT ALLAHABAD BENCH OA No 00075/2021 R.K. Sonkar and others Vs UOI uniform policies of the Government and so any judgments on these matters by their very nature are always judgments in rem and cannot be interpreted as judgments in personamby implementing/ complying authority.
Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Alok Kumar vs Union Of India on 22 July, 2014

xiii) That the respondents had violated the order dated 31.08.2004 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.101/2004 D.S. Dagar & 4 Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. wherein a categorical finding had been arrived at that nature of duties of the posts of Inspectors in CBI are different from Inspectors in CISF, and that the same are not analogous posts, which order had not been brought to the notice of the Tribunal during the hearing of the OA No.3245/2009 D.M. Sharma (supra).
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kapil Gurjar vs M/O Railways on 16 September, 2021

15. From the aforesaid, it is evident that in the aforesaid Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue was not with regard to the jurisdiction of this Tribunal in relation to the grievance with regard to appointment to a post under RPF. However, in view of the Order/judgment of this Tribunal in Swati Yadav (supra) wherein the Jabalpur Bench of this Tribunal has relied upon the Order/Judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bhola Nath Sen vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1991) 16 Administrative Tribunals Cases 125, we are of the considered view that the matter needs to be referred to a Larger Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the following issues:-
Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jang Bahadur Prasad Kesri & Ors vs The State Of Bihar, Through The ... on 30 March, 2018

An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whether registered as a Civil Writ Application or a Criminal Writ Application has to be examined for purpose of chargeability of court fee by taking into consideration as to whether granting of relief to one petitioner will automatically result in granting of relief to another petitioner. What has been held by the learned co- ordinate bench of this Court in Paragraph 6 in the case of Shiv Shankar Pandey (Supra) has to be adhered to. Wherever more than one petitioner move this Court in one application, the Stamp Reporter has to look into the guiding factor as to whether the relief of each of the petitioners is individual and each of them has his own cause of action granting relief to one of them shall not result into granting relief to each of the petitioners and where it is found that the relief of each of the petitioners is individual and grant of relief to one of them would not result in granting relief to the other Patna High Court Cr. WJC No.2088 of 2017 (4) dt.30-03-2018 11/ 12 petitioners the same benefits, in law, each of the petitioners will be taken to have preferred the application individually and they will be liable to pay separate court fee.
Patna High Court - Orders Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - R R Prasad - Full Document

No. 951390463 Ct/Gd Pritam Prasad Ojha vs The Inspector General Of Police Center ... on 2 December, 2019

Consequently, the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 58632 of 2014 (Pritam Prasad Ojha Vs. Union of India and 2 others) has been dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 6.4.2015 passed by this Court. Vide letter dated 26.11.2014 passed by the respondent No.2, the charge sheet dated 26.11.2014 was served upon the petitioner by levelling charge to the effect that the petitioner was appointed as Attendant of one Smt. Munni Devi Dwivedi to go to the PGI Hospital Lucknow with her in ambulance but the petitioner has not gone with the said patient. Vide order dated 17.12.2014 issued by the respondent No.3, one Sri Pramendra Narain, Deputy Commandant, GC, CRPF, Allahabad has been appointed as Inquiry Officer to conduct disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and vide order dated 30.12.2014 Sri A.B. Thapa was appointed as Presenting Officer in the aforesaid matter of disciplinary inquiry of the petitioner. During the course of inquiry the petitioner has pleaded that he is not guilty and thereafter the respondent No. 2 has issued a letter dated 11.4.2015 by which he has appointed Shri S.K. Pandey as a Presenting Officer in place of Shri A.B. Thapa in the said departmental inquiry.
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M C Tripathi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next