Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Shiv Kant Son Of Late Shri Ram Yagya ... vs Union Of India on 10 February, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA 607/2011
New Delhi this the 10th day of February, 2011
Honble Mr. M.L.Chauhan, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)
Shri Shiv Kant son of Late Shri Ram Yagya Shukla
Working as Postman in Krishna Nagar
Head Post Office, Delhi-110057.
Under Delhi East Postal Division,
R/o D.49/1 Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053 and
Address for service of notices
C/o Shri Sant Lal Advocate, CAT Bar Room,
New Delhi-110001. Applicant.
(By Advocate: Shri Sant Lal)
Versus
1. Union of India, through the Secretary,
M.O.Communications & I.T, Dept. of Posts,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Director Postal Services (P),
O/o the Chief Postmaster General,
Delhi Circle, Meghdoot Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001.
3. The Sr. Supdt. of Post Offices,
Delhi East Dn. Krishna Nagar,
Delhi-110051. Respondents.
ORDER (ORAL)
By Mr.M.L. Chauhan, Member (J):
Applicant has filed this OA whereby he prays that a direction may be given to the respondents to dispose of his representation dated 14.07.2009. It may be stated that the applicant had earlier filed OA 1302/2007 thereby challenging the validity of order whereby his candidature for the post of Postman was cancelled by the respondents. This Tribunal vide order dated 31.03.2008 quashed the impugned order and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal, the applicant was granted promotion to the post of Postman vide order dated 08.09.2008.
2. Grievance of the applicant in the present O.A. is that he should have been granted promotion from the back date when promotion was given to junior person, who was selected and appeared along with him for the aforesaid post. Whether such promotion can be given from retrospective effect or not is a matter to be considered by appropriate authority and we do not express any opinion in the matter at this stage more particularly when learned counsel for the applicant submits that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to decide the aforesaid representation of the applicant at this stage.
3. In view of above, present OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself by directing the respondent no.2 to decide the representation of the applicant dated 14.07.2009 annexed at Annexure A-5 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Needless to say that in case the applicant is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by respondent no.2, it shall be open to him to file separate OA challenging the validity of the said order.
4. With the above observation, the OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(Dr.A.K.Mishra) (M.L.Chauhan) Member(A) Member (J) /kdr/