Skip to content


Dr. N. John Chellappan Vs. Union of India, Represented by Secretary, to Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Ernakulam

Decided On

Case Number

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.770 of 2009

Judge

Appellant

Dr. N. John Chellappan

Respondent

Union of India, Represented by Secretary, to Ministry of Agriculture, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi and O

Advocates:

For the Applicant: Mr. P Nandakumar, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, Advocate.

Excerpt:


.....spent on duty but the said respondent vide annexure a-2 order dated 9.6.2008, rejected the same. in the above circumstances, he preferred the annexure a-3 representation dated 27.8.2008 to the 2nd respondent and the same is still pending. advocate mr. thomas mathew nellimoottil has appeared on behalf of respondents. he also has no objection if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the aforesaid representation in a time bound manner. we, therefore direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the annexure a-3 representation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. there shall be no orders as to costs.

Judgment:


HON'BLE Mr. GEORGE PARACKEN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The applicant has filed this OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, for a direction to 2nd respondent to consider and pass an appropriate order on his Annexure A 3 representation 27.8.2008 which is pending for more than one year. The applicant is working as Processing-cum-Quality Assurance Supervisor in Integrated Fisheries Project, Kochi. He undertook higher studies in Ph.D Course after taking earned leave for 300 days. Thereafter, vide Annexure A-1 representation dated 7.4.2008, he requested the 3rd respondent to convert the earned leave as study leave or as period spent on duty but the said respondent vide Annexure A-2 order dated 9.6.2008, rejected the same. In the above circumstances, he preferred the Annexure A-3 representation dated 27.8.2008 to the 2nd respondent and the same is still pending. Advocate Mr. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil has appeared on behalf of respondents. He also has no objection if a direction is given to the 2nd respondent to dispose of the aforesaid representation in a time bound manner. We, therefore direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of the Annexure A-3 representation with a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no orders as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //