CSIR scientist wins plea on promotion

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) on Monday directed the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) to reassess the promotion prospects of senior scientist Gauhar Raza and set aside an earlier assessment of Mr. Raza's work done by the CSIR's Peer Committee.

Mr. Raza, an M.Tech. from IIT, Delhi, joined the CSIR in 1982 as Scientist IV(3).

In a petition filed before CAT, he argued that the organisation had deliberately delayed his promotion and held a single sitting for assessing his promotion, overlooking four consecutive chances due to him.

This despite Mr. Raza scoring “outstanding” grades for all the years of assessment. He also said that the CSIR's governing body had arbitrarily changed the rules of “Assessment and Promotions' and falsified his performance indicators.

The tribunal observed that wrong information had been placed before the Peer Committee. Judges V.K. Bali and L.K. Joshi quashed and set aside the proceedings of assessment made by the Peer Committee and directed the CSIR to “reassess the applicant for promotion to Scientist IV(6).”

Courtesy : The Hindu

Supreme Court comes to the rescue of miserable cop

DNA / Rakesh Bhatnagar / Friday, March 18, 2011 22:51 IST

The Supreme Court has invoked the Victor Hugo bestseller Les Miserables to grant relief to a youth who was sacked from the police force for not declaring his criminal past.

In the novel penned in 1862, the character Jean Valjean is jailed for stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family and thereafter branded a thief all his life. Rejected and scorned everywhere and denied job opportunities, Jean becomes bitter and vows revenge on society and god. But an unthinkable act of mercy and generosity by a saintly small-town bishop drastically alters his life.

The court called for a similar “modern approach” of mercy to reform a person, “instead of branding him a criminal all his life”.

While applying for the post of a head constable in 1999, Delhi resident Sandeep Kumar concealed the fact that he was once arrested in a criminal case.

Later, after selection, in 2001, however, he mentioned in his self-attestation disclosure that he and members of his family were arrested for beating up a tenant in 1998.

The home ministry took serious note of this misconduct and ordered his removal. The central administrative tribunal upheld the government decision but the Delhi high court overturned the then police commissioner’s order removing Sandeep from the rolls.

In yet another thought-provoking judgment, a Supreme Court bench of justices Markandey Katju and Gyan Sudha Misra not only upheld the high court decision but also gave an altogether new dimension to the law regarding leniency.

When Sandeep had an altercation with his tenant, he must have been aged about 20 years. “At that young age people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often been condoned,” the court said, adding, “Condone minor indiscretions made by young people, rather than brand them criminals for the rest of their lives. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people.”

Sandeep’s offence, the judges said, was not “a serious offence such as murder, dacoity or rape”.

URL of the article: http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_supreme-court-comes-to-the-rescue-of-miserable-cop_1521660-all

Notional promotions not bereft of monetary benefits: CAT

New Delhi, Jan 4 (PTI) Even a notional promotion accorded to a government servant cannot be bereft of its consequential monetary benefits, including pension and arrears, the Central Administrative Tribunal has ruled.
"If a wrong is done, consequential benefits must be given on notional promotion," said the CAT's Delhi-based principal bench, while asking Delhi Police to accord all pecuniary benefits to one of its officials, who had been earlier given notional promotion by it after his retirement.
The CAT's principal bench gave this ruling on an appeal by Assistant Sub-Inspector Ishwar Singh of Delhi Police, who had lost his job following his conviction by a trial court in a criminal case, but was eventually acquitted by the Supreme Court, albeit after August 2005, when he had already crossed his age of retirement.
Following his acquittal, the Delhi Police, in April 2008 notionally restored his services for the purpose of grant of pensions etc

Employees may not be able to challenge CAT judgement in SC

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

Tribunal clears air on OBC job

New Delhi, Dec. 1 (PTI): The Central Administrative Tribunal has said the Centre will not reserve jobs for castes considered OBC by states but not by the Union government.

The tribunal passed the order on a petition by four members of the Jat community, recognised as an Other Backward Caste by the Delhi government, who sought appointment to posts reserved for OBCs in the Employees State Insurance Corporation, a central agency.

The petitioners pleaded before the tribunal that since the selection was to be made for the Delhi region, they, as Delhi residents, should be considered for appointment.

But the tribunal dismissed their petitions. The bench headed by V.K. Bali said: “In our opinion.... What is material is that the recruitment is being made for an agency of the central government.”

Departmental inquiry must before any stigmatic order: CAT

Express News Service Posted online: Wed Dec 01 2010, 04:47 hrs

Chandigarh : In a judgment with a far-reaching impact on employees serving on contract basis, the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), headed by Justice S D Anand, has held that no contractual employee can be terminated by an order which is stigmatic in nature without holding a regular departmental inquiry. The order came on a petition filed by one Karamjit Singh, who worked as Director of Physical Education (DPE) in the Chandigarh Education Department on a contractual basis since August 2001. He was ordered to be terminated by the Education Secretary, UT Chandigarh, on July 23, 2009, on the allegation of resorting to corporal punishment to students while serving in Government Model Senior Secondary School, Sector 47, Chandigarh. Ranjivan Singh, counsel for the petitioner Karamjit Singh, argued that not only was the allegation against the petitioner - that he had resorted to corporal punishment to students on July 22, 2009 - false and baseless but no fair inquiry was held before holding the petitioner guilty. Thus, the termination of the petitioner was against the principles of natural justice, Singh contended. It was pointed out to the Bench that the termination of the petitioner was ordered despite the fact that the alleged victim students and their parents had approached the higher departmental authorities pleading the petitioner’s innocence. Setting aside the termination of the petitioner, the Bench allowed the petition filed by him whereby he claimed his reinstatement with effect from July 23, 2009, continuity of service and arrears of pay.

Casual workers can't claim permanent appoitment as right: CAT

Press Trust Of India

New Delhi, November 16, 2010

A temporary employee or a casual wage earner cannot claim permanent appointment merely because he served beyond the period for which he was recruited, the Central Administrative Tribunal has held.

"Merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker is continued for a time beyond the term of his appointment, he would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent," a bench of members M Chibber and AK Mishra said.

The Tribunal passed the order on an application by Umrav Singh Rawat, a temporary employee of Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, seeking regularisation of his services.

Rawat had contended that despite working satisfactorily, his services were terminated suddenly by the Directorate without giving him any notice.

The Directorate opposed Rawat's plea on the ground that the temporary status granted to him was withdrawn as his services were no longer required by it and being a contractual employee, he could not claim regularisation as a matter of right.

Citing an apex court ruling, the tribunal said casual employees cannot claim employment as a matter of right.

"It is clear that a person who is engaged on casual basis has no right to continue. His engagement comes to an end when it is discontinued," it said.

 

Admn order invites CAT ire

Express News Service Posted online: Fri Oct 29 2010, 03:48 hrs

Chandigarh : The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh, has expressed anguish on the orders being passed by the Chandigarh Administration in terms of administration. Dismissing an application filed by one Narinder Kumar, resident of Sector 37-A, Chandigarh, who had sought promotion to the post of Head of Department in Institute of Polytechnic, a division bench comprising Justice (retd) S D Anand (judicial member) and Khushi Ram (administrative member of the Tribunal) held the application was devoid of merit. The Bench disapproved the conduct of the Administration in not passing orders on administrative side without reasons.
Speaking for the Bench, Justice S D Anand said, “Whenever an employee raises a claim before the competent administrative authorities the latter must notice each item from what the claimant draws sustenance and then to negative it by indicating the precise reasons thereof. If the claim is negated for want of any rule authorising it, the order must state so. If there is indeed is a rule in the context but the claimant does not make the benchmark the order must say so. If there is any other cause justifying the negation of the claim, even then the order must indicate it. The order must announce the result and also the basis thereof.” However, the Bench has made it clear that the observations are not aimed at any specific department. “We would like to express our anguish about the manner in which competent authorities have been found to have been granting orders on the administrative side. Before proceeding further it may be clarified that idea of penning our sentiments which stem from whatever we have been observing the course of adjudicatory functioning, is to inform all concerned to grant self contained orders. These observations are not meant to be directed at any particular department including the competent authority,”the order reads.
Narinder alleged he had not been considered for promotion, wrongly.

HC upholds UPSC decision to reject incomplete forms

New Delhi, Jan 25 (PTI) The Delhi High Court today upheld the decision of the UPSC not to allow some aspirants for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor to appear in the interview for failing to attach requisite documents after qualifying the written exam.

A Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Mukta Gupta set aside the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) which had directed the Commission to allow the aspirants to appear in the interview.

The court passed the order on a bunch of petitions filed by the UPSC challenging the order of the Tribunal.

"This is neither in the interest of the candidates who have qualified nor is it in public interest to cancel the entire examination for the sake of accommodating a few persons.

New Delhi, Aug 9 (PTI) The Central Administrative Tribunal has held that only a medical expert, not a departmental authority, is "competent" to certify if treatment administered on a government employee is an emergency case deserving medical reimbursement.

"Medical reimbursement cannot be claimed as a right in the context of financial burden on the government but when a laid down policy is there... then the authority, which is competent to certify an emergency, cannot be a departmental authority," the tribunal comprising members Shanker Raju and Veena Chhotray said.

"It is only an expert in the field, which is competent and has jurisdiction to certify whether the treatment incurred was in a state of emergency or not," the CAT said.

Pensionary benefits only after 20 years of service: CAT

New Delhi, Jul 28 (PTI) Government employees can claim pension only if they have completed a minimum of 20 years of service, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has held.

"The applicant, Mukesh, cannot claim pension, only for the reason that he had opted for the VRS. Qualifying service is essential for a government servant to claim pension as there is no relaxation permissible," the CAT, headed by Vice Chairman M Ramachandran, said.

The Tribunal passed the order on a plea of a Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) employee who alleged that he had not been given the pensionary benefits after he opted for voluntary retirement scheme (VRS) and sought directions for relief.

The CAT noted that the pension scheme was there as per the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules and minimum incumbency of 20 years of service was required for a person to claim pension as a matter of right.

Safety rider to disabled posts

New Delhi, July 11: A person can be denied promotion if he has a disability that makes him unfit to carry out his job in a higher post or poses a safety risk, the Supreme Court has ruled.

The court, however, made it clear that a disability in itself cannot bar a person from promotion, as laid down by the disabilities act of 1995.

However, the court added that the act was not intended to jeopardise the safety of the public, the disabled employee himself or his co-employees, or the safety of the employers’ equipment or assets. Nor was the law aimed at accepting reduced standards of safety and efficiency merely because an employee suffered from a disability.

“If promotion is denied on the ground it will affect safety, security and performance, then it is not denial of promotion merely on the ground of disability but is denial by reason of the disability plus something more, i.e. (an) adverse effect upon (the) employee’s performance of (the) higher duties or functions attached to the promotional post,” a two-judge bench said on Thursday.

The court was ruling on a railway ministry appeal against a high court decision asking it to promote a colour-blind person to a higher grade.

Devender Kumar Pant was appointed lab assistant in the Research Designs and Standards Organisation (RDSO) in 1972. He was promoted to junior research assistant in 1977 and senior research assistant in 1983.

In 1997, the ministry promoted him to chief research assistant on condition he get a medical certificate stating he was not colour blind. Pant moved the Lucknow bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, asking it to quash the part of the order requiring him to produce the certificate, and other orders asking him to appear before medical officers.

The tribunal dismissed his case in May 2005, ruling that the ministry order was in keeping with job requirements and was in his own interest and that of other employees. It held that unless Pant obtained the fitness certificate, he would not be meeting the medical standards for the post.

Allahabad High Court, however, upheld Pant’s appeal, ruling that promotion could not be denied merely on the ground of disability unless the employer was exempted from certain provisions of the 1995 act by a notification. No such notification exempted the RDSO.

The Supreme Court, upholding the ministry appeal, also noted that the law often treated people with different disabilities differently.

For example, a provision of the act reserves jobs for people with blindness, low vision, hearing impairment, locomotor disability or cerebral palsy, but not for those with mental retardation or illness.

The court also said that colour blindness could not be construed as a disability under the 1995 Act, since it did not amount to blindness or low vision. So, it was doubtful whether a colour-blind person could claim benefits under the act.

Courtesy: The Telegraph

CAT comes to aid of whistleblower

Hiral Dave, Rajkot

Says Central Vigilance Commission bowed to influence, failed to protect officer who blew the cover

In a strongly worded order, the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has slammed the Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) for bowing to the “influence of the powers that be”, and for failing to protect an officer who blew the whistle on a multi-crore land scam at the Kandla Port Trust (KPT).

The whistleblower, Manoj Ranjan Kumar, an IES officer, was deputy chairman at KPT. He had to fight a year-long legal battle after he prepared a confidential report exposing a land scam involving top KPT officials.

It related to 1,000 acres of land belonging to KPT, given free to private companies for use without charging any amount as lease. At the heart of the controversial deal was a salt company operating from the KPT land without paying a penny to the government. The total loss suffered by KPT on this account was estimated to be over Rs 190 crore per annum, which, interestingly, exceeded even the port trust’s annual turnover of Rs 180 crore.

With the lid off the scam, Kumar was ordered to go on leave for three months in January 2008, along with the then chairman Janardhan Rao and three other senior officers. The shipping ministry ordered a CBI inquiry but Kumar, on his part, moved the CVC with his report and documents. The CVC did nothing.

In August 2008, the CAT ordered Kumar to be repatriated to KPT, but the shipping ministry issued no orders to enable him to join back. So, Kumar approached the CAT again. Since then, he has been without a posting, and no salary.

In its 113-page order, the CAT has now asked the shipping ministry to pay a token fine of Rs 25,000 and compensation of Rs 25,000 to the officer, while indicting it for harassing Kumar.

The CAT order says that removing the officer from KPT by the ministry was done as ‘a substantial number of people, wielding power, felt threatened and insecure on account of the reports he had made of the scam’.

Now the CBI is investigating the scam, but three important files prepared by Kumar that are considered capable of leading to the prosecution of the higher ups are missing. A police complaint was filed on this account by the KPT but no one was arrested.

A saga of harassment, injustice; says CAT
“None of the reports submitted by the applicant is false, yet the ministry had the audacity to state that instead of devoting his time to the development of the port, he was making frivolous complaints. In our view, he has been meted great injustice. Facts of the case do clearly reveal his agony, harassment and humiliation. We are of the view that he deserves cost which we here by quantify at Rs 25,000. Even this cost may not compensate him in view of marathon litigation forced upon him,” the CAT order says.

The CAT's indictment of CVC
“If the reply would have been filed by the CVC, we are of the view that it would have no choice, but to support the case of the applicant. We may also draw an inference that it is because of the influence exerted by the powers that be that CVC has not filed a reply. We are distressed to note that the applicant, because of his bold stand exposing misdeeds, corruption and irregularities, instead of being protected by the system, had in fact been victimised. The applicant, in our view, required the protection of CVC. If the system may not protect the applicant, in our considered view, the court must come to his rescue. Otherwise, no whistleblower will ever dare to expose corruption. A whistleblower without protection, where higher ups may be involved, may always be a victim himself,” the CAT order said.