Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2026) 09 CAT CK 3460

Sandeep Kumar Pandey vs The Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad · Decided on 11 September 2026

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial) · Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 330/1021 of 2026

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

14 paragraphs · 399 words

O R D E R

By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):-

Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar Pandey, the applicant, who appears in person and Shri Suraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondents and with the consent of both the the parties, instant Original Application is being disposed of at the Admission stage itself.

2.

The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed by the applicant for the following reliefs:-

(i)

To issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order No.900603/858/LZ/35/E-1(Con) dated 07.02.2026 (Page No.39-40 in O.A) passed by Major General, Chief Engineer Central Command Headquarters Chief Engineer Central Command Headquarters Chief Engineer Central Command Pin 900450 C/o 56 APO in the interest of principles of natural justice.

(ii)

To issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus not to give effect to the penalty order 900603/858/LZ/35/E-1(Con) dated 07.02.2026 in the interest of principles of natural justice.

(iii)

To issue any other order or direction in favour of the humble applicant as deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case.

iii.

to award cost of the original application to the Applicants.”

3.

At the very outset, the applicant, who appears in person very fairly submits that the applicant has preferred an Appeal on 01.03.2026 before the Appellate Authority against the impugned order dated 07.02.2026, which is still pending before the Appellate Authority. Suffice, it would be if a direction is given to the concerned respondent/Appellate Authority to pass an appropriate order on the pending appeal of the applicant, within a stipulated time.

4.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the same.

5.

In view of the submissions made by both the parties, without going into the merits of this case, it appears that the Appeal preferred by the applicant is still pending before the respondent concerned, we therefore, direct the Appellate Authority/respondent concerned to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the pending appeal of the applicant, if not decided as yet, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6.

Resultantly, instant O.A. stands disposed of.

7.

All pending MAs in this O.A are also stand disposed off.

8.

No order as to costs.