Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh

Mes No. 507322 Suresh Kumar Electrician ... vs Union Of India on 15 December, 2016

      

  

   

       CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH


O.A NO. 060/00752/2015  	Date of decision-15.12.2016 


CORAM:   HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
	       HONBLE MRS. RAJWANT SANDHU, MEMBER (A)


1. Mes No. 507322 Suresh Kumar Electrician S.K.
2. Mes No. 507323 Jaswant Singh, Elect (SK).
3. Mes No. 506197 Ramesh Kumar, Elect. SK.
4. Mes No. 363299 Mangat Ram (Retd.) FGM (SK).
5. Mes No. 502085 Som Nath (Retd.) FGM (SK).
6. Mes No. 507308 Berjinder Singh FGM (SK).
7. Mes No. 358071 Kewal Kumar (Retd.) FGM (SK).
8. Mes No. 504487 Darshan Kumar, Elect (SK).
9. Mes No. 507211 Rajneesh Kumar, Elect. (SK).
10. Mes No. 502419 Rajinder Kumar REFG/Mech (Sk).
11. Mes No. 504020 Parvesh Kumar Elect (SK).
12. Mes No. 506233 Rajinder Kumar Elect. HS-I.
13. Mes No. 506235 Hem Raj Elect. HS-I.
14. Mes No. 307766 Uttam Chand FGM HS-II.
15. Mes No. 503132 Baldev Raj FGM HS-I.
All the applicants are/have working/retired from the office of respondent no. 5. 
      APPLICANTS
BY ADVOCATE : Sh. Jagdeep Jaswal

      VERSUS

1. Union of India, Through, Secretary, Ministry of Defence, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Engineer-in-Chief, E-in-Cs Branch, Army Headquarters, Kashmir House, New Delhi.
3. Chief Engineer, Pathankot Zone, Pathankot.
4. Commander Works Engineer, Pahtankot-145001.
5. Garrison Engineer, (South) Pathankot.

       RESPONDENTS
BY ADVOCATE :	 Ms. Nidhi Garg.



ORDER (ORAL)

 HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-

1. The present O.A has been filed by the applicants impugning the communication dated 10.06.2015 which is a reply to the legal notice, addressed to the Advocate.
2. Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued that the present O.A is not maintainable in its present form as the applicants have not impugned any order passed by the respondents rather they have impugned a reply to the legal notice, therefore, present O.A be dismissed on this ground alone.
3. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the O.A enabling him to file fresh petition by impugning the order passed by the respondents rejecting their case.
4. Ordered accordingly. 
 (RAJWANT SANDHU)                               (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
           MEMBER (A)                                             MEMBER (J)

Dated:  15.12.2016.
`jk










	



1
	 
	

	OA No. 060/00752/2015