T.A. No. 260/2009. Case: 1. Jagdish Chand Since Deceased. Through Legal Heirs, 2. Ram Rati Wd/o Late Jagdish Chand , 3. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj s/o Late Jagdish Chand , 4. Suman Lata Bhardwaj d/o Late Jagdish Chand, 5. Punam Lata Bhardwaj d/o Late Jagdish Chand Vs 1. Medical Council of India Through It s Secretary, New Delhi, 2. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Health, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case Number:T.A. No. 260/2009
Party Name:1. Jagdish Chand Since Deceased. Through Legal Heirs, 2. Ram Rati Wd/o Late Jagdish Chand , 3. Dinesh Kumar Bhardwaj s/o Late Jagdish Chand , 4. Suman Lata Bhardwaj d/o Late Jagdish Chand, 5. Punam Lata Bhardwaj d/o Late Jagdish Chand Vs 1. Medical Council of India Through It s Secretary, New Delhi, 2. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department of Health, New Delhi
Counsel:J. B. Mudgil, Sanjay Sharma, Pratibha M Singh, Gaurav Sharma, Sumeet Bhatia
Judges:Shanker Raju (Judicial Member) & Dr. Veena Chhotray (Accountant Member)
Issue:Service Laws
Judgement Date:November 17, 2009
Court:Central Administrative Tribunal
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Shanker Raju (Judicial Member), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

  1. In view of the decision of Five Judge Bench of this Tribunal in Mrs. Chandra Kala Pradhan v. Union of India & others, 1997-2001 A.T. Full Bench Judgments 410, CM-12961/2008 (page 239 of the paper book) for bringing on record the legal heirs is allowed.

  2. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings, once the intent has been shown by the employee to challenge the order of dismissal, which has a civil consequence, as an appeal preferred against an order passed thereupon on 12.3.2001 having not been challenged, is resisted by learned counsel for respondents by referring to a decision in Vinod Kumar Meena v. Union of India & others (CW-4120/2001), wherein not only on the ground that appellate order having not been impugned but also the territorial jurisdiction was not with the High Court, the said writ petition was dismissed on 11.4.2002.

  3. In the Tribunal, we are basically in a judicial review of service grievance of an employee. This is a case where the applicant died due to cancer during the interregnum in December 2007 of the writ petition. However, the appellate order has not been challenged, yet there is a reference to the appeal and appellate order. We are not swayed on hyper-technical plea, rather to dispense with justice a compassionate view on equity has to be taken because the petition before us is being maintained by the legal heirs of the deceased. As such, in view of clause (e) of the prayer part where it has been prayed that issue any other appropriate writ, order, or directions as this Hon ble Court may in the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition deem fit and proper in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents, this is a fit case where such a discretion has to be exercised and we entertain this petition as if there has been a challenge to the...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL