AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member J
Shri Mahesh Prasad, counsel for the applicant is present.
Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, counsel for the respondents is present.
Learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the O.A. He submitted that earlier the applicant has approached to this Tribunal through O.A. No. 962/2024, which was decided on 29.08.2024 with direction to the respondents to consider the grievance of the applicant regarding P.F. G.I.S./BIMA etc. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to Order dated 25.10.2024 (page 90 of the O.A.) wherein the grievance of the applicant has been redressed by the respondents and it has been clearly stated that the father of applicant was removed and accordingly only P.F., GIS/BIMA are liable to be paid to the heirs of deceased employee and the same was already paid to the mother of applicant. Counsel for the respondents has further objected that once the relationship of Master and Servant comes to an end as the father of applicant was removed from service, the applicant is not entitled for any relief.
At this stage, counsel for the applicant has prayed for dismissing the O.A. as not pressed.
In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the present O.A. has been filed for the same relief as was sought in O.A. No. 962/2024 which was decided by Order dated 29.08.2024 to consider the grievance of the applicant for P.F. and GIS/BIMA and the respondents have already paid the same to mother of the applicant hence, there is nothing to be considered by this Tribunal.
Looking to the aforesaid submission of parties’ counsel, O.A. No. 877/2025 is dismissed as not pressed as well as on the ground that the O.A. is misconceived.