AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per: Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
By way of the OA filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
“ 8.1) Quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure-A1), 06.02.2026 (Annexure-A1) and 30.04.2026 (Annexure-A17) to the extent it curtails the applicant's tenure on loan basis to its common date of 30.04.2026 instead of granting him full further extension contemplated under the governing policy;
8.2) Declare and hold that the applicant having fulfilled all prescribed conditions for extension and are to the full extension of another two years and that no curtailment or fragmentation of such extension is permissible under the policy;
8.3) Direct the respondents to grant the applicant the full extension of another two years, without any depletion of such entitlement on account of the impugned curtailment and permit him to continue the present place of posting;
8.4) Direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits therefrom;
8.5) Award costs of the present proceedings; and
8.6) Make any other orders that may deem fit and proper in interest of justice.”
The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents. They have filed their counter reply. The applicant has filed rejoinder, and thereafter, surrejoinder has also been filed.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and, with their assistance, have also perused the pleadings available on record.
Though various grounds have been pleaded in the OA, learned counsel for the applicant has restricted his arguments to the ground that, though the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 (Annexure A-1) has been issued by the respondents in purported compliance with the directions of the Tribunal contained in the order/judgment dated 16.03.2026 in OA No. 336/2026, except for giving the background of the present case, the impugned order dated 15.05.2026 does not contain any reason for denying the claim of the applicant.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that, in fact, the reasons are available in the order dated 30.04.2026 which has been referred to by the respondents in their impugned order dated 15.05.2026.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the submissions made by them.
In the impugned order dated 15.05.2026, in paras 1 to 7 thereof, the respondents have only given the background of the earlier OA, i.e. OA No. 336/2026, and thereafter, in paras 8 to 11, it is asserted as under:
“8.The order of Hon'ble CAT was forwarded to HRD, CBDT vide this office letter dated 30.04.2026. HRD, CBDT has informed that the representation of Shri Ramteke has been duly considered and disposed of by the Board, and the decision has been communicated vide HRD letter dated 30.04.2026.
9.The HRD letter dated 30.04.2026 contains the details of officials who were granted extension of loan tenure after consideration of their updated grounds, facts, circumstances and supporting documents. The letter also states that all representations received in this regard stand disposed of.
10.In view of the above, it is evident that the representation dated 16.03.2026 of Shri Prashik Anil Ramteke has been duly considered by the Board being the Central Administrative Tribunalcompetent authority, and based on the grounds, facts and circumstances mentioned in his representation, the Board has not found it fit to extend the loan tenure of the official beyond 30.04.2026.
11.Accordingly, the representation dated 16.03.2026 stands disposed of by the Board and the directions of Hon'ble CAT have been complied with by the competent authority.”
The impugned order dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure A-17), after giving the background and referring to the representations of 10 persons in paras 1 to 4, the respondents have asserted in paras 9 and 10 as under:
“9.With this letter all representations received in this regard, stand disposed of. No further representations in this regard will be entertained.
10.This issues with the approval of the Competent Authority.”
From the aforesaid, it is not in dispute that the applicant has raised various grounds in support of his claim in his representations. On perusal of the aforesaid two impugned orders, it is apparent that none of the grounds has been dealt with by the respondents while passing these two impugned orders.
It is also an admitted case that the claim for extension of tenure has been acceded to by the respondents in respect of various other individuals. Reasons have been given qua those individuals. However, no reason has been given as to why the claim of the applicant has been denied.
In the aforesaid background, the present OA is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to decide the claim of the applicant as made in his representation(s) and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and preferably within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The OA stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.