CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2018) 07 CAT CK 0133

Khem Singh vs Anupam Srivastava And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 5 July 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
L. Narasimha Reddy, J · K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Contempt Petition No. 274 Of 2017, Original Application No. 3654 Of 2016

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

5 paragraphs · 260 words

L. Narasimha Reddy, J

1.

The petitioner retired as Sub Divisional Engineer (SDE) from BSNL. He submitted a medical bill of Rs.11,79,814/- for reimbursement. Alleging that the bill was not settled, he filed OA No.4413/2015. The OA was disposed of directing the respondents to take action on the medical bill. Through a speaking order dated 20.02.2016, the respondents released an amount of Rs.8,55,408/- which was approved by the Circle Office, Ambala Cantonment. In other words, the applicant was not entitled for reimbursement of the remaining amount.

2.

Not satisfied with the speaking order, the petitioner filed a representation on 03.03.2016. Alleging that the representation was not disposed of, the applicant filed OA No.3654/2016. The said OA was disposed of on 09.11.2016 directing that the representation of the petitioner be considered within three months. This contempt petition is filed alleging that the respondents have flouted the directions issued by this Tribunal.

3.

Heard Shri R. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Pradeep Kumar Mathur, learned counsel for the respondents.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to point out as to how the speaking order is defective. He is not able to place any material supporting the entitlement of the remaining amount of the medical claim made by him. There was no adjudication as such by this Tribunal quantifying the amount to which the petitioner is entitled to. The Tribunal cannot be mulcted with the petitions of this nature which will waste valuable time to decide the other genuine disputes. The Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed.