Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

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

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Pradeep Arya vs Shri Sudhir Kumar on 22 November, 2011

      

  

  

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

C.P. No. 813/2011 In 
O.A. No. 3046/2011

New Delhi, this the 22nd day of November, 2011.
	
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A)

Pradeep Arya,
S/o Late Shri Raja Ram, 
R/o B-77, F-1 Dilshad Extn. No.II, 
DLF, Sahibabad, 
Ghaziabad, UP. 				             ..Applicant 

By Advocate: Shri S. Chakraborty. 

Versus

1.	Shri Sudhir Kumar
	Special Secretary (Health)
	Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, 
	New Secretariat, 
	I.P. Estate, New Delhi.

2.	Dr. Raj Pal, MS,
	G.T. B. Hospital, 
	Dilshad Garden, 
	Delhi-110095. 	                           		        ..Respondents 

By Advocate: Shri Vijay Pandita.

O R D E R(ORAL)
  
Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) : 

CP was filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 26.09.2011 passed in OA No.3406/2011 whereby following directions were given:

It is considered expedient to dispose of this application with a direction to the applicant to meet the Additional Secretary with a prior appointment in terms of Office Order dated 1.8.2011. The Medical Superintendent shall also consider the representation of the applicant seeking personal hearing and dispose of the same within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Further grievance of the applicant is that he has not been given salary. Until the applicant is given a posting afresh, the respondents shall consider due payment of salary, as admissible to him from the office where he was working last and as and when, the applicant is given afresh posting, further disbursement of salary will be made accordingly as per the applicable rules. If applicant is still aggrieved by the order of the respondents in the matter of his posting or otherwise he shall be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with the law.

2. When the matter was called out today, counsel for the respondents informed us that pursuant to the directions given by this Tribunal, the representation of the applicant has been disposed of vide order dated 10.10.2011 annexed with the CP itself. As far as his posting is concerned, another order dated 20.10.2011 has been passed and applicant has been transferred and posted in JPCH with immediate effect and it is also clarified that the salary of the official shall be drawn from GTBH till the date of issue of the order. No dues certificate has also been issued by the GTB Hospital on 05.11.2011 and no dues certificate has also been issued by the other department, which is also annexed with the bunch of documents, handed over in court. Counsel for the respondents further stated that LPC has also been issued to the applicant.

3. In view of above, nothing more survives in this CP. The same is accordingly dropped. Notices are discharged. However, in case applicant is still aggrieved by the orders passed by the respondents, it would be open to him to challenge the same on the original side as liberty was already given to the applicant in the main order itself.

(SHAILENDRA PANDEY)			    (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) Member (A)				      		      Member (J)	

/jyoti/