Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Siloni Dhawan vs Union Of India Through Secretary To ... on 10 March, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O. A. No.060/00259/2017 Date of decision: 10.03.2017
M.A. No.060/00338/2017
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A).
1. Siloni Dhawan, aged 48 years, W/o Sh. Rajinder Dhawan.
2. Kamal Preet, aged 47 years, W/o Sh. Roop Singh.
3. Neera Sharma, aged 48 years, W/o Sh. Rajneesh Sharma.
4. Sushma Rani, aged 46 years, W/o Sh. Darshan Goel.
5. Anuradha, aged 49 years, W/o Sh. Gurmeet Singh.
All working as Data Entry Operator, Grade-B, in the office of Directorate of Census Operations, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110001.
2. Registrar General & Census Commissioner of India, 2-A, Mann Singh Road, New Delhi-110001.
3. Director, Census Operations, Union Territory, Plot No.2-B, Sector 19-A, Janganana Bhawan, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160019.
RESPONDENTS
PRESENT: Sh. R.K. Sharma, counsel for the applicants.
ORDER (Oral)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J):-
1. Present O.A. has been filed by the applicants seeking following relief:
8(a). Issue directions to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants for regularization of their services from the date they were appointed on adhoc basis with all other consequential benefits towards seniority, ACP/MACP etc. as has been granted to their colleagues serving as Assistant Compilers, Statistical Investigator serving under the respondents, whose services have been regularized after considering their claim by taking into consideration the earlier precedents and advice of the Ministry of Law as described in the body of O.A.
2. Along with the O.A., applicants have also moved M.A. No.060/00338/2017 under Rule 4(5) (a) of Central Administrative Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1987 seeking permission to join together and file single petition. For the reasons stated therein the M.A., the same is allowed.
3. On the commencement of hearing, learned counsel for the applicants states that before approaching this Court, applicants have already filed representation dated 13.05.2015 followed by several reminders and legal notice dated 30.09.2016 but the same have not been replied to by the respondents till date. Therefore, he made a statement at the Bar that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents to decide their pending representation dated 13.05.2015 and legal notice dated 30.09.2016 by passing a reasoned and speaking order in a time bound manner.
4. Issue notice to the respondents. Sh. Ram Lal Gutpa, Sr. Standing Counsel for Union of India accepts notice and does not object to the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicants. He, however, prayed that two months time may be granted to the respondents to consider claim of the applicants.
5. Considering ad-idem between the parties, present O.A. is disposed in limine with a direction to the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider and decide aforesaid representation/legal notice of the applicants. If applicants are found to be entitled to the benefit, the same be released in their favour, otherwise a reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Order so passed be duly communicated to the applicants.
6. Disposal of this O.A. in above terms may not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Date: 10.03.2017.
Place: Chandigarh.
`KR
4
O. A. No.060/00259/2017