Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 6790

Mohd. Arshad vs Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow · Decided on 15 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Ojha, Member (J) · Pankaj Kumar, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 332/00502/2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

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

10 paragraphs · 384 words

PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

2.

Through this original application, applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):

“a. to issue / pass any order or direction quashing the order dated 24/08/2016 and further direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for promotion / Up-gradation as Car Driver Special Grade with effect from date of completion three years regular service as Staff Car Driver Grade I in the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with all consequential benefits including further revision of pay in the P.B.-2, Pay Band Rs 9300-34800 plus Rs. 4200/- grade pay along with arrears of salary with 18% interest.

b. To issue / pass a direction to the respondents to pay the Grade pay of Rs. 2800/- w.e.f. 25.05.2010 along with 18% interest.

c. To allow this Original Application with costs in favour of the applicant, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play.”

3.

At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if this O.A. is disposed of by giving permission to the applicant to file a fresh representation for ventilating her grievance with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation filed by the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time to be fixed by this Tribunal.

4.

To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s representation is directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then a period of at least two months may be allowed for the same.

5.

Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of finally, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the applicant to prefer a fresh representation within two weeks from today and respondents/ competent authority shall consider and decide the said representation filed by the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law and relevant rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant.

There shall be no order as to costs.