Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Triloki Nath Yadav vs The Union Of India on 26 August, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A.No.2790/2011 New Delhi, this the 26th day of August, 2011 Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Honble Dr. Dharam Paul Sharma, Member (J) Shri Triloki Nath Yadav Aged about 45 years s/o Shri Ram Dayal Yadav r/o RZ 1-96A West Sagarpur New Delhi 110 046. Applicant (By Advocate: Shri V.P.S.Tyagi) Versus 1. The Union of India (Through Secretary) Ministry of Defence South Block New Delhi. 2. The Controller General of Defence Accounts Ulan Batar Marg Palam, Delhi Cantt. 3. The Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (WC) Chandigarh (UT). 4. The DCDA (Pay) COD Delhi Cantt. 5. The Commandant Central Ordnance Depot Delhi Cantt. Respondents O R D E R (Oral) By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
The grievance of the applicant, a Group `D Mazdoor (Industrial Labourer) presently working in COD, Delhi Cant, is that he had been reemployed in Central Ammunition Depot (CAD), Pulgaon against a Group `D post w.e.f. 04.04.2005 in the pay scale of Rs.2650-65-3300-70-4000 after having secured his voluntary discharge from Army Service. Subsequently, he had joined COD, Delhi Cantt on compassionate transfer and had been accorded a lower pay scale of Rs.2550-3220 on the basis of an undertaken given by him. Thereafter, he filed a representation on 3.08.2011 with Respondent No.5 for accord of the pay scale which he was drawing at CAD, Pulgaon before his compassionate transfer to COD, Delhi, which has been rejected vide order dated 06.05.2011, leading him to file this OA for the following relief:
quash and set aside the action of the respondents in downgrading to the lower pay scale than that which he was initially granted on his appointment in CDA, Pulgaon by accord of Pay scale of Rs.2650-4000 with all consequential benefits.
Direct the respondents to make payment of the arrears arising on account of payment of salary at the down graded pay scale on joining COD, Delhi Cantt. w.e.f. 1.2.2008 with 12% interest thereon.
3. The case had been reserved for orders but on detailed scrutiny of the documents attached with the OA, it was found that adjudication of this case is not possible as the applicant had not furnished essential supporting documents with regard to his averments in the OA, such as the appointment letter on the basis of which he was re-employed in CAD (Pulgaon), his request for compassionate transfer from CAD (Pulgaon) to COD (Delhi), the order under which he was transferred, and documents showing the pay drawn in the earlier station and the new station, etc. On this being pointed out to the learned counsel for the applicant, when the case was listed `for being spoken to today, the learned counsel for the applicant sought to withdraw the OA with liberty to file a fresh OA, if so advised, with full particulars with supporting documents.
4. The OA is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
(Dharam Paul Sharma) (Shailendra Pandey) Member (J) Member (A) /nsnrsp/