Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ashok Kumar Son Of Lalman Mishra vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 6 September, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, Original Application No.359 of 2009 Jabalpur, this the 6th day of September, 2010 Honble Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, Vice Chairman Honble Mr. Hriday Narain, Administrative Member Ashok Kumar Son of Lalman Mishra, Aged about 44 years, Ex Trolley Man-North BAU Under SSE (P-Way) North BAU, R/o Quarter No. R.B.-1-43/C, Lalbag Burhanpur, Distt.Burhanpur (MP) - Applicant (By Advocate Shri Ajeet Singh) V e r s u s 1. Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi. 2. General Manager, Central Railway, G.M. Office, Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminal, Mumbai. 3. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Bhusawal. 4. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Central Railway, Khandwa. 5. Senior Section Engineer (P-Way), North Central Railway, Burhanpur -Respondents (By Advocate Shri M.N.Banerjee) O R D E R (Oral)
By Hriday Narain, AM.-
The present OA has been filed praying for the following relief:-
This Honble Tribunal may kindly be pleased :
(i) to allow the applicant and his family members to stay in Quarter No.R.B./1/43-C at Burhanpur till his son gets compassionate appointment on normal rent.
(ii) to direct the respondents not to impose any penal rent on the applicant.
(iii) Any other relief as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in favour of the applicant may also be granted.
2. The Applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal in OAs Nos.613 & 614 of 2008 for getting certain relief. These OAs were disposed of by a common order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure A-11). In the said order the Respondents were asked not to insist upon the Applicant to vacate the quarter, allotted to him, till the Applicants application for compassionate appointment to his son was not decided. In para 5 of the said order this Tribunal had observed as under:-
5. Applicant has also made a prayer that penal rent should not be charged for retention of the quarters beyond permissible period. I am of considered view that such a consideration would rest in the first instance with the executive authority.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted before us that till now the Respondents have not decided the Applicants request regarding non-charging of penal rent for retention of the quarters beyond permissible period. In view of this position, which is not denied by the Respondents in their Reply, we consider it proper to remit the matter to the Respondents, who shall take into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case and shall decide the matter as above. It is clarified that the Respondents shall decide the matter within a period of 120 days from the date of receipt of this order by a speaking order.
4. The OA is thus disposed of with no order as to costs.
5. Send copies of this order to the Applicant and to all the Respondents in the address given in the OA, by registered post.
6. Free copies of this order be also supplied to the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(Hriday Narain) (Manoranjan Mohanty) Administrative Member Vice Chairman rkv ?? ?? ?? ?? 1 OA No.359/09 Page 1 of 2