Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Pankaj Motwani vs Union Of India Through on 15 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI OA No.1629/2012 Dated this Tuesday the 15th day of May, 2012. Honble Mr.Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Sh. Pankaj Motwani, S/o Shri S.L.Motwani, R/o A-11A, Kanchan Apartments, Geeta Colony 110 031. Applicant. (Applicant in person) Vs. Union of India through 1. Member Traffic (Chairman Governing Council-C.R.I.S.), Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi 1. 2. Managing Director Center for Railway Information Systems, Chanakya Puri, New Delhi 110021. Respondents ORDER (ORAL)
The applicant, who is working as Systems Manager in Centre for Railway Information Systems (C.R.I.S.), has filed this OA seeking following reliefs:-
(I) Direct respondents to reply against my pending representation pertaining to below benchmark grading in ACR of period 2005-06 and 2006-07.
(II) Direct respondent to indicate my position in merit list and seniority list amongst directly recruited technical staff of C.R.I.S.
2. It is seen that the applicant is seeking multiple reliefs in this OA. The Applicant, who appears in person, states that he is not pressing relief (II) mentioned above and confine himself to Relief No.(I), which relates to his ACR for the periods 2005-06 and 2006-07. The applicant states that he had obtained both the ACRs under the RTI Act and found that the grading given to him in the ACRs was below the benchmark, as a result of which, he has not been promoted in two DPCs, already held to promote the officers to the next grade. He also states that with regard to the ACR for the period 2005-06, the adverse remarks in the ACRs 2005-06 were communicated to him directly by the Controlling Officer bypassing the formal channel of the communication, and that for the said ACRs, the Reporting, Reviewing and Accepting Authorities were the same resulting in denial of an independent forum to which he could represent with regard to the adverse remarks/grading. He submits that with regard to these two ACRs, he has already submitted a representation on 26.10.2009 to the Registrar (page-30) followed by a reminder and a representation on December 2011 to the Managing Director (page-36) but the same have not been responded to. Being aggrieved, the applicant has filed the present OA.
3. In view of the limited prayer of the applicant seeking a direction to the respondents to reply to his pending representations keeping in view of the facts as mentioned above, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to look into the pending representation(s) of the applicant and take a considered decision thereon in accordance with the rules. The decision taken may be communicated to the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
4. It is made clear that we have not expressed any view on the merits of the case.
5. The OA stands disposed of as above. No order as to costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) Member (A) uma CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.709/2012 New Delhi this the 2nd day of March, 2012 Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Dr. K.B. Suresh, Member (J) Smt. Mamta Rani W/o Sh. Manjit Kumar R/o B-79, GL-4, West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110094. -Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Gyanendra Singh) Versus
1. The Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006.
2. The Administrator Kasturba Gandhi Hospital Jama Masjid, Delhi-110006. -Respondents ORDER (Oral) Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) The grievance of the applicant, in this OA, is with regard to non-release of her salary from 19.01.2011 till date. The applicant states that she has made several representations to the Respondent No.2 from 08.11.2011 onwards but no reply has been received from them. She, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide her pending representation in accordance with the rules within a fixed time frame.
2. In view of the above, this OA is disposed of, at the admission stage itself, by directing the respondents to look into the pending representation of the applicant, treating this OA also as a supplementary representation and take a considered decision thereon in accordance with the rules. The decision taken may be communicated to the applicant through a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(Dr. K.B. Suresh) (Shailendra Pandey)
Member (J) Member (A)
cc.