CP 441/2009 In OA 930/2007. Case: 1. Jagdish Singh, 2. Chand Ram, 3. Kartar Singh, 4. Ram Kishan, 5. Ram Charan Saini, 6. Mukhtiar Singh, 7. Ranbir Singh, 8. Om Prakash, 9. Ved Prakash, 10. Ashok Kumar Vs 1. Rajni Raj Dass, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and P.G., New Delhi, 2. M. S. Pariva, Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Government of Nct of Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberCP 441/2009 In OA 930/2007
Party Name1. Jagdish Singh, 2. Chand Ram, 3. Kartar Singh, 4. Ram Kishan, 5. Ram Charan Saini, 6. Mukhtiar Singh, 7. Ranbir Singh, 8. Om Prakash, 9. Ved Prakash, 10. Ashok Kumar Vs 1. Rajni Raj Dass, Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Personnel and P.G., New Delhi, 2. M. S. Pariva, Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Government of Nct of Delhi
CounselYogesh Sharma, Vijay Pandita
JudgesM. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman) & R. C. Panda (Accountant Member)
IssueService Laws
Judgement DateDecember 01, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

M. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman), (Principal Bench, New Delhi)

  1. The applicants had filed OA 930 of 2007, which was disposed of, on 20.03.2009. Paragraph 11 of the order had directed the respondents to consider the prayer of the applicants for grant of first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme in the pay scale of Rs.6000-8000. The reasoned and speaking order informing the applicants of the decision taken was to be passed within three months and in case the applicants were further aggrieved, they were at liberty to seek redressal in accordance with law.

  2. Alleging that there was non-compliance with the judgment as the order had not been passed, the present application has been filed. Along with the counter reply, the respondents have contended that the orders have already been passed, and hence there was full compliance. Mr. Vijay Pandita appearing for the respondents submits that the reason for delay was administrative exigencies and it requires to be condoned.

  3. Mr. Sharma appearing for the applicants submits that the order passed during the pendency of the CP dated 21.10.2009, is in contravention of the observations and findings that are on record when the matter was adjudicated. He contends that there was a definite finding that the applicants were not in isolated posts but now as stated by the respondents, the issue has practically been reopened, the Department taking a position that the applicants are holding isolated posts. He further submits that when there was a direction to the first respondent/Government to pass an order, a subordinate officer of the rank of Superintending Engineer had taken it as a duty to dispose of the application rejecting the claims.

  4. We cannot but note the tenor of discussions made by the Tribunal while passing the order but the fact remains that there was no positive direction and initiative had not been wrested away from the respondents in the process of adjudication. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial