Manoj Kumar Singh vs Union Of India & Others

A Mukhopadhaya, Member (A)

At the outset, Shri Ashutosh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, drew the attention of the Court to Annexure No. 15 to the OA which

refers to the judgment/order of this Tribunal in the earlier OA No. 157/2020 filed by the applicant. He pointed out that the said OA was disposed of as

the applicant wanted to withdraw the same in order to submit a fresh representation to the respondents for release of provisional pension and also

initiate proceedings separately before the Director of Estates under Rule-16 of the Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993 for adjudication of the

dispute regarding payment of damage/penal rent. Shri Pathak, submitted that in compliance of this judgement/order, provision pension stands released

to the applicant by the respondents and this fact has been acknowledged in the present OA at paragraph 4.22. However, the representation made by

the applicant to the Estate Officer/ Director of Estates in compliance of the aforementioned judgment/order has been rejected vide order dated

22.01.2021; (Annexure A-3). Shri Pathak further submitted that as per procedure prescribed under The Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971, the applicant is required to appeal against this decision, if so advised, to the competent appellate authority. Since, this has not

been done, this OA is premature and should be dismissed accordingly.

At this, Shri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that in view of the position represented by learned counsel for the

respondents, he would like to withdraw this OA so as to pursue further proceedings before the aforementioned appellate authority.

Shri Ashutosh Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, has no objection to this.

Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed as withdrawn.

There will be no order on costs.