AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J):-
Heard, Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, counsel for the applicant and Shri Anil Kumar, counsel for the respondents.
The instant original application has been filed seeking following reliefs: -
“(i)This Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash and set-aside the PPO issued on 30.07.2024 to the extent showing the qualifying service only 29 years with further direction to the respondents to treat the dies-non period as qualifying service and allow the 3rd MACP on completion of 30 years of services, with other consequential benefits.
(ii)This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to take final decision on the revision petition of the applicant.
(iii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may Central Administrative Tribunaldeem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv)Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is challenging the impugned action of the respondents. He further submitted that the applicant was awarded the penalty of removal from service on 13.01.2003 on the ground of unauthorized absence. Thereafter, on 24.12.2003, the Appellate Authority considered the appeal preferred by the applicant and modified the penalty to reduction of pay to a lower stage of Rs. 5,500/- for a period of two years, without cumulative effect. In pursuance of the said order, the applicant joined the department on 29.12.2003. However, the respondents have treated the period from the date of removal from service till reinstatement, i.e. from 13.01.2003 to 24.12.2003, as “dies-non” by treating the period as non-duty. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid action, the applicant has moved representation dated 01.01.2026 before the Respondent authority for considering the same, which is still pending for consideration and therefore, desires that his representation may be decided by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents has no issue if an order to decide the representation of the applicant is passed Central Administrative Tribunal without going into the merit of the case.
Without going into the merits of the case and considering the limited prayer made by the applicant, this Tribunal is of the view that the Original Application can be disposed of at this stage.
Accordingly, the Original Application No.1028 of 2026 is disposed of with a direction to Respondents/competent authority to consider the grievance of the applicant by deciding the pending representation of the applicant dated 01.01.2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
No order as to costs.