Ramesh Kumar Vs. Delhi Development Authority Through Chairman and Others

Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority Through Chairman and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi Decided Mar 15, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/938932

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/938932
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Judge: The Honourable Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) &Amp; the Honourable Mrs. Manjulika Gautam, Member (a)
Decided On: Mar 15, 2012
Case Number: OA NO.812 of 2011
Subject: Right to Information

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Right to Information

Key legal issue: Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ramesh Kumar

Advocate For the Applicant: Yogesh Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Karunesh Tandon, Advocate.

Respondent

Delhi Development Authority Through Chairman and Others

Excerpt

.....authority, commissioner (personnel) for making payments of arrears due for the period i.e. 1989-1999. it is stated that this letter dated 24.02.2008 is in contravention to the actual records and hence, cannot be relied upon in as much as the issue of break in service period of the applicant is yet to be decided, since no attendance record of official concerned is available in the office. 3. in view of the stand taken by the respondents in the reply affidavit, disputing the period regarding eligibility of applicant for payment of pay and allowances for the period 19.09.1989 to 18.03.1999 consequent upon regularization of service of the applicant w.e.f. 19.9.1989, we are of the view that directions can be given to the respondents to decide the matter in controversy within a fixed time frame. 4. accordingly, respondents are directed to decide the aforesaid issue within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. needless to add that in case applicant is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents, it will be open for him to file substantive oa. we may also observe that we have not gone into the merits of the case and that the order has been passed on the basis of submissions recorded above. oa shall stand disposed of. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORAL:

M.L. CHAUHAN, MEMBER (J):

1. The grievance of the applicant in this case is that his pay has not been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 w.e.f. 19.9.1989 i.e. when his services were regularized and further that the respondents have also not paid pay and allowances w.e.f. 19.9.1989 to 18.3.1999. For that purpose, reliance has been placed by the applicant on the letter dated 24.02.2008 (Annexure A/2)

2. Respondents have filed reply. In the reply, respondents have stated that there appears to be typographical/clerical error in the letter dated 24.02.2008 in which the CPIO/APIO has allegedly stated that the file bearing no.F.1(8)83/PB-IV/+3 was sent to AO/NG-III on 09.10.2007 after approval (instead of FOR APPROVAL) of the competent authority, Commissioner (Personnel) for making payments of arrears due for the period i.e. 1989-1999. It is stated that this letter dated 24.02.2008 is in contravention to the actual records and hence, cannot be relied upon in as much as the issue of break in service period of the applicant is yet to be decided, since no attendance record of official concerned is available in the office.

3. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the reply affidavit, disputing the period regarding eligibility of applicant for payment of pay and allowances for the period 19.09.1989 to 18.03.1999 consequent upon regularization of service of the applicant w.e.f. 19.9.1989, we are of the view that directions can be given to the respondents to decide the matter in controversy within a fixed time frame.

4. Accordingly, respondents are directed to decide the aforesaid issue within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to add that in case applicant is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondents, it will be open for him to file substantive OA. We may also observe that we have not gone into the merits of the case and that the order has been passed on the basis of submissions recorded above.

OA shall stand disposed of. No costs.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi · 2012 Same Parties Ramesh Kumar vs Delhi Development Authority Through Chairman ... Same Subject Right to Information Same Judge The Honourable Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) &Amp; the Honoura...