Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Union Of India & Others vs Manoj Kumar & Others on 14 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI P.T. No.357/2010 in O.A. No.686/2010 (Mumbai) with P.T. No.358/2010 in O.A. No.1069/2010 (Hyderabad) This the 14th day of February, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN PT No.357/2010 Union of India & Others Applicants ( By Shri R. N. Singh , Advocate ) Versus Manoj Kumar & Others Respondents ( By Shri V. K. Rao, Sr. Adv. & with him Ms. Shikha Sapra, Adv. ) PT No.358/2010 Union of India & Others Applicants ( By Shri R. N. Singh , Advocate ) Versus J. M. Kishore Respondent ( By Shri V. K. Rao, Sr. Adv. & with him Ms. Shikha Sapra, Adv. ) O R D E R
By this common order, I propose to dispose of two petitions for transfer as the same are based upon same facts. The bare minimum facts that may need mention have, however, been extracted from PT No.357/2010 in OA No.686/2010 pending at Mumbai Bench. This PT has been filed by the Union of India. OA aforesaid has been filed by the respondents challenging the seniority list issued vide orders dated 23.8.2010 and 27.8.2010. Next date of hearing in the matter before the Mumbai Bench was 10.1.2011 when the PT was filed. Number of Applications bearing OA Nos.3130/2010 to 3138/2010 with similar prayers have been filed in the Principal Bench at Delhi. Another OA No.1069/2010 with similar prayers is pending at Hyderabad Bench. The second petition seeking transfer has been filed in the OA pending at Hyderabad Bench. It is the case of the Union of India that it would be expedient and to maintain uniformity in the judgments between different Benches of the Tribunal that the two OAs referred to above are transferred to the Principal Bench at Delhi. The next date of hearing in the OAs pending in the Principal Bench is 14.3.2011.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, reply has been filed by the original applicants, wherein it is inter alia pleaded that the OA pending before Mumbai Bench pertains to seniority within the Mumbai Commissionerate, whereas the OAs pending before this Bench relate to other Commissionerates. In my view, the mere fact that the OAs may pertain to different Commissionerates will not make any difference as long as the issues involved in all the OAs are same. To avoid any conflict of opinion, it is expedient to consolidate all the OAs in one Bench. So ordered.
3. The PTs are allowed.
( V. K. Bali ) Chairman /as/