Rakesh Kumar Vs. Union of India Through General Manager, New Delhi and Others

Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India Through General Manager, New Delhi and Others

Type Court Judgment Court Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi Decided Nov 01, 2011

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/939039

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/939039
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi
Judge: The Honourable Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Judicial Member
Decided On: Nov 01, 2011
Case Number: OA No. 267 of 2011
Subject: Education

Case Summary

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

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Rakesh Kumar

Advocate For the Applicants: Ms. Meenu Mainee for Shri R.K. Shukla, Advocates. For the Respondents: None for the respondents even on revised call.

Respondent

Union of India Through General Manager, New Delhi and Others

Excerpt

.....to the applicants. 3. at the hearing, ms. meenu mainee, learned counsel appearing for applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied if, in the first instance, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 16.1.2009, as at annexure a-1 within the fixed time frame. she also requests that the present application may also be treated as a supplementary representation of the applicant. 4. in view of the limited prayer of the applicants, as mentioned above, i feel it appropriate to dispose of this application at this stage with the directions to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representations as referred to above, and also treat the present original application as a supplementary representation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ordered accordingly. 5. in the aforesaid premises, it has not been necessary for me to go into the merits of the applicant’s claim. nor the aforesaid directions are intended to operate to the prejudice to the respondents in any manner whatsoever. the respondents shall be free to take such decision as they deem appropriate in accordance with the applicable rules. 6. this application is disposed of in the above terms.

Full Judgment

(Oral)

1. In this case notice to the respondents was issued on 18.1.2011. Thereafter this case was listed on four occasions to enable the respondents to file their counter reply. Till date reply has not been filed by the respondents. Today nobody has chosen to appear on behalf of the respondents even on revised call. I proceed to dispose of this Application under Rule 16 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.

2. By filing this Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicants are seeking directions to the respondents to consider the case of applicant No.1 for the grant of compassionate appointment and further to release retiral/terminal benefits to the applicants no.1 and 2. The applicants have filed representation in this regard to the respondents on 16.1.2009. However, till date no decision on the same has been communicated to the applicants.

3. At the hearing, Ms. Meenu Mainee, learned counsel appearing for applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied if, in the first instance, the respondents are directed to consider and decide the applicants’ representation dated 16.1.2009, as at Annexure A-1 within the fixed time frame. She also requests that the present Application may also be treated as a supplementary representation of the applicant.

4. In view of the limited prayer of the applicants, as mentioned above, I feel it appropriate to dispose of this Application at this stage with the directions to the respondents to consider and decide the applicants’ representations as referred to above, and also treat the present Original Application as a supplementary representation, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.

5. In the aforesaid premises, it has not been necessary for me to go into the merits of the applicant’s claim. Nor the aforesaid directions are intended to operate to the prejudice to the respondents in any manner whatsoever. The respondents shall be free to take such decision as they deem appropriate in accordance with the applicable rules.

6. This Application is disposed of in the above terms.

Same Court & Year Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi · 2011 Same Parties Rakesh Kumar vs Union of India Through General Manager, New D... Same Subject Education Same Judge The Honourable Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Judicial Member