Central Administrative Tribunal judgments

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that daily rated workers with seven years continuous service must be regularized under SRO 64 of 1994, rejecting arbitrary classification as casual labour.

CAT holds that when an Open Merit vacancy arises post-correction of reservation, the original merit order must be restored before operating waiting lists to protect reserved category candidates' rights.

CAT Jammu holds that recovery of excess pay granted decades ago without fraud or notice is illegal; mandates release of withheld gratuity and arrears with interest.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that interest at 12% per annum is mandatory on delayed payment of arrears ordered by the Supreme Court in S.Bheesmachar case, reinforcing compliance with judicial directives.

CAT rules that disabled employees must be considered for promotion under Section 34 of RPwD Act 2016, directing promotion of visually impaired LDC over juniors.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that approval for issuance of charge sheet must be distinct from initiation of proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

The Central Administrative Tribunal holds that suspension orders lapse automatically upon superannuation, as no statutory provision permits continuation post-retirement.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that State cannot retain land donated on promise of employment and later deny obligation using policy excuses. Key precedent on promissory estoppel.

CAT Patna holds that misappropriation of even small MGNREGA funds warrants dismissal; intent and breach of trust outweigh repayment or procedural delays.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that family pension is exclusively due to the first legally wedded wife when second marriage is contracted without prior government permission under J&K Conduct Rules.

CAT holds that merger of government cadres is a policy decision beyond judicial review unless shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of natural justice.

CAT Jammu holds that uninterrupted service on a sanctioned post creates enforceable rights under Articles 14 and 16, directing regularization from date of officiation.

CAT Allahabad rules that delay in filing compassionate appointment claims does not automatically bar consideration, directing authorities to decide representations on merits within three months.

Central Administrative Tribunal upholds policy restricting police absorption to Government ITI diploma holders, rejecting claims of arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that seniority does not override eligibility criteria for promotion under service rules. Key principles for government employees clarified.

Central Administrative Tribunal directs implementation of Government Order 10-DMRRR/2019 for de-reservation of unfilled posts under PM's package for Kashmiri migrants.

Central Administrative Tribunal rules that mere pendency of FIRs without conviction cannot disqualify government employees from promotions or appointments under Articles 14 and 21.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that procedural lapses like non-uploading of Aadhaar data cannot defeat statutory rights under J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 for long-serving casual workers.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that parity in pay fixation under Articles 14 and 16 requires identical service conditions, not mere similarity in designation.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that reservation roster under J&K Reservation Act overrides seniority claims in promotions, even for 100% promotional posts.

The Central Administrative Tribunal holds that a waiting list cannot be revived after a selected candidate joins and later resigns, affirming finality in recruitment processes.

Central Administrative Tribunal holds that initial disqualification due to age renders subsequent service void; regularization cannot cure illegality at inception.

CAT Allahabad holds that employees have an inalienable right to refuse promotion if the order permits it, regardless of domestic hardship or same-division posting.

CAT Bangalore upholds that disciplinary authorities are sole judges of facts in departmental inquiries; courts cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence.