Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2023) 04 CAT CK 0652

Bimal Singh Ale vs Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 25 April 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J) · Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
CASE NUMBER
MA No.1421 of 2019 in Review Application No. 26 of 2019

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 307 words

Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)

2.

This review application No.26/2019 has been filed by the respondents’ Advocate Shri Rajesh Sharma along with MA No.1421/2019 with condonation of delay. The order was passed on 22.06.2018, thereafter the writ petition No.87/2019 was preferred before the High Court which was decided on 01.03.2014.

3.

Looking to the covid-19 and other circumstances, MA No.1421/2019 is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned.

4.

As far as the review is concerned, it appears that the applicant submitted that the Tribunal was having no jurisdiction to entertain General Reserved Engineering Force matter (GREF). The order is required to review/recall.

5.

It appears that OA No.621/2018 was filed by Bimal Singh before this Tribunal which was decided on 22.06.2018 at the motion stage. The court did not decide the matter on merits, any final order was not given by the Court. In para-6 of the aforesaid order, the court mentioned as under:-

“6.

Accordingly, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present OA with the direction to the respondents No.6/competent authority to take a decision on the recommendation sent by the respondents No.5 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and if the applicant is entitled for the benefit of MACP, the same may be granted in favour of the applicant. No costs. ”

6.

Therefore, it appears that as per Para-6, the direction was only given to decide the matter as per rule. The court did not give any direction for deciding the matter. The discretion was left to the respondents to decide the matter this way or that way. Therefore, it cannot be said that any violation has been made. Hence, the Review Application No.26/2019 is dismissed.