Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2021) 07 CAT CK 0466

Shiv Vishal vs Union Of India & Ors.

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 2 July 2021

HON’BLE JUDGES
A. Mukhopadhaya, Member (A)
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 332/00111/2021

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

7 paragraphs · 343 words

Heard both learned counsel for the applicant as well as for the respondents.

2.

Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, submitted that the applicant had already received approval of the respondent no.-1, (General Manager, Northern Railway), to be appointed as Telephone Attendant Dak Khalasi, (TADK), with the respondents. Despite the fact that this was done vide order dated 21.07.2020, (Annexure-A1), while others covered by the same order of approval like one Shri khushraj Meena had already been offered appointment, respondent no. 2, for reasons unknown, had not offered any appointment to the applicant so far. Shri Kumar further submitted that the applicant had submitted a representation in this regard dated 16.12.2020, (Annexure-A/7), but this representation also remains to be considered and decided so far.

3.

Looking to the aforementioned circumstances, Shri Kumar, stated that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant dated 16.12.2020, (Annexure-A7), by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a reasonable timeframe.

4.

Shri Dinesh Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted in this regard that as far as he was aware, certain policy issues involving the Railway Board had prevented a final decision on this case thus far.

5.

Looking to the limited nature of the plea made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without entering into merits of the case, I deem it appropriate in the circumstances, to dispose of this OA at the stage of admission itself by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 16.12.2020, (Annexure-A7), given to them by the applicant and after affording an opportunity of a personnel hearing to the applicant in the matter, decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law and convey this to the applicant within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

6.

Original Application is disposed of accordingly along with any linked MAs.

7.

There will be no order on costs.