Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2022) 06 CAT CK 0033

Mohammad Ishaq & Others vs Union Territory Of Ladakh Through Commissioner/Secretary To Government, Home Department, UT Ladakh & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 13 June 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anand Mathur, Member A · D.S. Mahra, Member (J)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 534 Of 2022

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

9 paragraphs · 237 words

Anand Mathur, Member (A)

1.

Mr. Mohammad Ismail, learned counsel for the applicant, and Ms. Saima vice Mr. Tahir Samsi, learned counsel for the respondents are present.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicants are working as Head Constables and are due for promotion to the post of ASI. Their juniors have been promoted whereas the applicants have been lef out since they have not passed the pre-promotional test which is pre-requisite for promotion. However, the applicants had later on passed the test on 16.03.2022 but despite that their promotion orders are not being issued.

3.

Learned counsel for the respondents pleads for some time to gather the facts of the case.

4.

Learned counsel for the applicants states that the applicants would be satisfed if the respondents are directed to consider the contents of this OA as representation of the applicants and pass a speaking order thereon within a time frame.

5.

In view of the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the averments made in the present O.A. as representation of the applicants and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks from today. A copy of the speaking order so passed be provided to the applicants.

6.

O.A./534/2022 is disposed of accordingly.

7.

We have not entered into the merits of this case.

8.

No order as to costs.