O.A. 1256/2008, M.A.995/2008, M.A. 52/2009 and M.A. 335/2009. Case: 1. Ujjawal Kumar, Haryana; 2. R. K. Meena, New Delhi; 3. Awadhesh Kumar, New Delhi; 4. M. V. Chelapathi Rao, New Delhi; 5. S. S. Garg, Delhi Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi; 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi; 3. Director General (Works) , Delhi; 4. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberO.A. 1256/2008, M.A.995/2008, M.A. 52/2009 and M.A. 335/2009
Party Name1. Ujjawal Kumar, Haryana; 2. R. K. Meena, New Delhi; 3. Awadhesh Kumar, New Delhi; 4. M. V. Chelapathi Rao, New Delhi; 5. S. S. Garg, Delhi Vs 1. Union of India, Secretary, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi; 2. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi; 3. Director General (Works) , Delhi; 4. Chairman, Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi
CounselS. K. Sinha, H. K. Gangwani
JudgesM. Ramachandran (Vice Chairman) & N. D. Dayal (Accountant Member)
IssueService Laws
Judgement DateMarch 19, 2009
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Judgment:

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

MA 335/2009

  1. We are of the opinion that the applicants in the Miscellaneous Application (MA 335/2009) have no cause to be heard in this application, especially noticing that the respondents have in their additional reply referred to certain circumstances, which may lead to a situation that we are not to go to the merits of the contentions raised as such. Miscellaneous Application is dismissed.

    OA 1256/2008

  2. The applicants have been appointed as directly recruited Assistant Executive Engineers (Electrical), during 1990-1993 in the Central Public Works Department. Their complaint is that the seniority list, which has been published, does not correctly reflect their claims and the Department is to be directed to take notice of their grievances which have already been highlighted, as further promotions very heavily depend upon the position of seniority assigned to the concerned individuals. Mr. H.K. Gangwani, counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondents had invited our attention to a short reply filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2 and 3, on 25.02.2009. He points out that almost an identical issue had come before this Tribunal in OA 1310/2008, and the case had been disposed of, on 09.01.2009 with the following observations:

    "It is evident that the claims as put up are simple and straightforward. In fact, the official respondents have not disputed the genuineness and basis of the claim. Therefore, we direct that the seniority list Annexure A-4 should be properly subjected to a recasting after noticing claims as highlighted in this OA as well as impleading persons. If the claims are found to be tenable, by giving general notice...

To continue reading

Request your trial