Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2021) 02 CAT CK 0027

Rajiv Kumar, SSSA, Group ‘C’, vs Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Others

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 1 February 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. K. Bishnoi, Member (A) · R.N. Singh, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 214 Of 2021

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

17 paragraphs · 345 words

R. N. Singh, Member (J)

1.

In the present OA, applicant has challenged the order dated 07.01.2021 by which the representation of the applicant for non-assessment of the

answer of 2 questions in first paper for AO/EO Limited Departmental Examination held on 13-14/11/2017 has been rejected.

2.

Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the impugned rejection order is a result of non-application of mind in as much as the respondents have

passed the order mechanically. He further adds that the applicant is entitled for correct assessment of the answers given by him and the same is

within the scheme of the respondents. He further argues that aggrieved of the impugned order dated 7.1.2021, the applicant has made further

representation dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure A/11 Colly), However, the same has not yet been disposed of by the respondents.

3.

Issue notice. Shri Satpal Singh, learned Senior Central Government Counsel, who appears on advance service for respondents, accepts notice.

4.

At this stage, Shri M.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that applicant shall be satisfied, if the present OA is disposed of with

direction to the respondents no.2 & 3 to consider the aforesaid representation dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure A/11 Colly) keeping in view the relevant

policy and the contentions raised by the applicant and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner.

5.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the considered view that if such request of the applicant is accepted, no prejudice

is likely to be caused to the respondents.

6.

In view of the aforesaid, without going into the merits of the claim of the applicant, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents

No.2 & 3 to consider the aforesaid representation dated 14.01.2021 and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order as

expeditiously as possible and in any case within six weeks of receipt of copy of this Order.

7.

OA is disposed of with aforesaid directions. No costs.