AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju and R. Tiwari, JJ.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has challenged the Impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 15.4.1999 (Annexurr-1 to the writ petition).
We have carefully perused the impugned order and find no illegality in the same. The Tribunal has observed that there was break in the petitioner''s service, and since he did not complete ten years service, therefore, he is not entitled for pension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner had urged that certain points were urged before the Tribunal, which have not been considered by the Tribunal. It is well-settled that if certain points are not mentioned in the judgment of the Court or Tribunal, it will be deemed that they were never pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The presumption in law is that the Court or Tribunal deals with all the points which are pressed. It often happens that 10 points are taken in a petition but only 3 points are pressed. Naturally the Court/Tribunal will deal with only these 3 points. If learned counsel for the petitioner wants to urge that some other points were pressed before the Court/ Tribunal but have not been dealt with then he should approach the same Court or Tribunal, and if he can satisfy it that such points were in fact pressed, the Court/Tribunal can reconsider Its order.
We, therefore, give liberty to the petitioner to approach the Tribunal in this connection and if he does so, the Tribunal will decide the application expeditiously in the light of the observations made above.
The writ petition is disposed off accordingly.