Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
1. Vide this O. A. the applicant has sought setting aside of the order dated 20.11.1997 passed by the State of U.P. placing him under suspension with immediate effect. He has also sought directions to respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid impugned order.2. The prayer of the applicant has been contested by the respondents and objections as also detailed counter reply and supplementary counter affidavit were filed by the State of U.P. The applicant filed rejoinder as also supplementary rejoinder. We have carefully gone through the same and also taken note of the detailed submissions of the learned counsel for the two sides made at the admission stage itself. The O.A.is being finally disposed of at the admission stage itself.3. Now a brief description of the factual background. The applicant, who is a member of the Indian Administrative Service, was appointed as Director, U.P. Rajaswa Krishi Mandi Parishad vide an order dated 6.4.1997 and assumed the charge of that post on 8.4....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Lucknow
Reported in : (2004)(3)SLJ69CAT
1. The applicant of this O.A. has prayed for quashing the order dated 21.4.1999 and the order dated 25.8.2000 passed by the Govt. of India.It is also prayed that all benefits admissible to the applicant from the date such benefits have been allowed to his next junior also be given to him including the Jr. Administrative Grade and the Selection Grade.2. Learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Sundeep Dixit and for respondent No. 2 Mr. A.K. Chaturvedi have been heard and pleadings on record have been perused. During the course of hearing on 30.7.2003, learned Counsel for the applicant Mr. Sandeep Dixit stated at the bar that at this stage he is not pressing the relief clause in Para 8 (ii) of the O.A. relating to grant of all benefits from the date such benefits have been granted to his next junior including the Jr.Administrative Grade and Selection Grade. In so far as respondent No. 1 is concerned, learned Counsel Mr. Q.H. Rizvi was not present on a number of dates fixed for hearing such...
Tag this Judgment!