Binod Kumar Singh & Others vs Sh. S.B.Som & Others Respondents on 24 February, 2011

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Binod Kumar Singh & Others vs Sh. S.B.Som & Others Respondents on 24 February, 2011

Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

MA 2871/2010
CP 112/2001
CP 338/2001
OA 1082/1999

New Delhi this the 24th day of February, 2011

Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)

Binod Kumar Singh & Others Applicants

(By Advocate: Shri Yogesh Sharma)

Versus
Sh. S.B.Som & Others Respondents.

(By Advocate: Shri Rajinder Nischal)

ORDER

By Dr.A.K.Mishra, Member (A)

MA 2871/2010 has been filed for revival of the CP No.388/2001 on the ground that a Writ Petition filed by the respondents in the Honble Delhi High Court against the order dated 29.09.2000 passed in OA 1082/1999 has been dismissed in default.

2. Earlier, the contempt petition was dismissed by this Tribunal on the ground that the Writ Petition against the order of the Tribunal had been entertained by Delhi High Court. Since the Writ Petition has been dismissed and the order of this Tribunal has attained finality, it is contended by the applicant that there is every justification for re-opening the contempt proceedings to ensure that the respondents carry out the directions issued to them by this Tribunal in the aforesaid order.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants admits that the order dated 29.09.2000 passed in OA No.1082/1999 has attained finality. At the same time, he draws our attention to the speaking order passed by the respondent-department on 27.01.2011 pursuant to the directions made by this Tribunal. It is contended by the respondents that this speaking order is in supercession of all previous orders of the respondents and it has been made after re-examination of the facts of the case in the light of the prevalent law of the land, the administrative instructions governing the subject and keeping in view the directions of this Tribunal. A copy of this order is also placed before us, which is taken to the case file.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants contends strenuously that the directions of this Tribunal have not been complied in letter and spirit and the re-examination had not been done as per observations made by this Tribunal in the aforesaid order. He also submits that earlier also the respondents had taken similar grounds which were not accepted by this Tribunal as proper compliance.
5. In view of the stand of the respondents that compliance has been rendered, we have to examine whether the directions of this Tribunal given in paragraph-9 of the judgment have been complied with or not. The directions to the respondents are:
i) to carefully examine the prevailing employment scenario in the Mass Mailing Center in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal so as to determine the feasibility of replacing the existing method of offering employment on piece-rated basis by a substitute method whereunder the entire work on hand will be handled by casual labourers hired by the respondent Department according to need that may arise from time to time;
ii) in doing so, the respondents will take into consideration the claim of the applicants for induction as casual labourers;
iii) if the applicants are to be engaged as casual labourers, their inter-se seniority could be worked out based on the length of service performed by each of them;
iv) the seniority so determined will be respected at the time of offering employment on casual basis and giving further consequential benefits.

5. The speaking order dated 27.01.2011 takes note of the directions of this Tribunal and thereafter goes on to say that the applicants are piece-rated workers of the status of outsiders engaged in pre-mailing activities to make the mail complete in all respects on behalf of the mailing organizations after which the Postal Department takes over the mail and deals with them. According to the respondents, the applicants are engaged on the basis of availability of work and their wages are paid by the mass mailing organizations. This facility has been given by the respondent Department to the mass mailing organizations for their convenience. The work for insertion of letters in the envelopes, pasting of address stickers, gumming of envelopes & closing of envelopes etc. are done by these workers on piece rate basis. According to the respondents, these are not the activities of the Postal Department but of the mailing organizations.
5.1 After examination of the entire process and all the issues involved, the respondents have come to the conclusion that there was no possibility of engaging casual workers by the Postal Department to discharge the functions of the mass mailing organizations.
6. Since the first direction about examining the possibility of engaging departmental casual labourers to discharge the pre-mailing work of mass mailing organization has been answered in the negative, it follows logically that other directions lose their significance.
6.1 The respondents have explained how, earlier, casual labourers used to be engaged by the Department through a process of selection to perform non-sensitive nature of work. According to them, there is an essential difference between the casual labourers employed by the Department and the piece rated workers, who are engaged from the open market only for pre-mailing activities for the convenience of mass-mailers. They have also referred to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors vs. Uma Devi & Ors. JT 2006 (4) SC 420 which prohibits back-door entry into Government Organization in violation of Constitutional provisions.
7. Therefore, viewed from the legal angle, departmental instructions, the nature of work the respondent authority came to the conclusion that it was not possible for them to engage casual labourers on full time basis to discharge the work now performed on piece-rate basis in mass mailing centers. Accordingly, it is stated that compliance relating to other observations regarding preparation of seniority list etc. did not arise.
8. We find that the direction to the respondents was to examine the possibility of engaging regular casual workers on behalf of the Postal Department to discharge the pre-mailing functions of daily-rated workers in mass-mailing centers. This has been examined and a speaking order has been passed.
9. In view of above, we find that there has been substantial compliance with the direction of this Tribunal. In case, applicants have any grievance against this order, it is open for them to challenge the speaking order in the original side. In the circumstances, we do not find any justification to allow this MA and reopen the contempt proceedings. The MA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

(Dr.A.K.Mishra) (Meera Chhibber)
Member(A) Member (J)

/kdr/
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA 3720/2010

New Delhi this the 21st day of February, 2011

Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)

Vinod Kumar Gupta,SW/AMI
Circle No.10 Ward No.254
Shahdara North Zone
New Usmanpur, Dellhi-53. Applicant.

(By Advocate: Shri A.K.Soni)

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Through its Commissioner,
Town Hall, Chandni Chawk,
Delhi-110006. Respondent.

(By Advocate: Shri Balendru Sekhar)

ORDER (ORAL)

By Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J):

Applicant had challenged order dated 19.01.2004 against which applicant had filed appeal dated 31.03.2004 which has not been decided till date.

2. Counsel for the respondents admitted that the applicants appeal is still pending and he would have no objection if a direction is given to the respondents to dispose of his appeal. Accordingly, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case by directing the respondents to consider the appeal of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant.

3. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No costs.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)	  	   		         	     Member (J)

/kdr/
                    Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.

               CP 820/2011
OA 3138/2009

New Delhi this the 21st day of February, 2011 Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A)

1. Shri Adarsh Kumar Oberoi S/o Shri Girdhari Lal, R/o H.No.8/20, East Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.

2. Shri Amar Nath Juneja S/o Shri Mehar Chand, R/o 30/36, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi.

3. Shri Prem Singh S/o Shri Beer Singh, R/o 23, Suraj Nagar, Azadpur, New Delhi. Applicants.

(By Advocate: Shri S.B.S.Vashistha) Versus Shri K.S.Mehra Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi. Respondent.

(By Advocate : Sh. Anshuman Choudhary) ORDER (ORAL) By Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J):

This contempt Petition was filed alleging disobedience of the order dated 26.05.2010 passed by this Tribunal in OA 3138/2009 whereby respondents were directed to reconsider the request of the applicants, keeping in view the two conditions mentioned in the order dated 15.12.2003, which had been referred to in para 13 above, and take a final decision in the matter as per rules, and communicate the decision taken through a reasoned and speaking order.

2. When the matter was called out today, counsel for the respondents stated that respondents have prepared cheques and all the cheques bearing nos. 274780 dated 11.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.35,376/-, 790206 dated 02.02.2011 for an amount of Rs. 7,048/-, 790501 dated 15.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.4,468/-, 789900 dated 15.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.4,468/-, 790514 dated 18.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.15,053/-, 790236 dated 09.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.5,366/-, 790237 dated 09.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.25,234/-, 790205 dated 02.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.2,710/-and 790515 dated 18.02.2011 for an amount of Rs.24,686/- have been handed over to the counsel for the applicants. However, counsel for the applicants submits that he may be given liberty to represent to the authority if there is some mis-calculation or some amount is still left out. Request of the counsel for the applicants seems to be reasonable.

4. In view of above, this CP is dismissed and notice is discharged. However, liberty is given to the applicants to represent to the authority in case they find any miscalculation or some amount is still left out.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)	  	   		         	     Member (J)

/kdr/
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
	
OA 3896/2010

New Delhi this the 21st day of February, 2011 Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A) Bhisham Kumar U.D.C. C.G.H.S S/o Late R.B.Sharma R/o H-235, Nanakpura, Motibagh-II, New Delhi-21. Applicant.

(By Advocate: Shri M.M.Singh) Versus

1. Government of India Through Secretary Ministry of Health and Family Welfare New Delhi.

2. Central Government Health Scheme Through its Additional Director (H.Q.) C.G.H.S., 9, Bikaner House, New Delhi. Respondents.

(By Advocate: Shri Subhash Gosai) ORDER (ORAL) By Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J):

Applicant had sought a direction to the respondents to grant 2nd ACP from the date of his entitlement and accordingly re-fix his pay and the entire arrears may also be granted.

2. When the matter was called out today, counsel for the respondents has produced office order dated 12.01.2011, which reads as under:

In pursuance of office order No.Pt.F.No.9-1/2010-CGHS/Estt. (NG)/82-89 dated 10-012011, Sh. Bhisham Kumar, UDC who has been granted II nd ACP in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 w.e.f. 19.12.2004, his pay is fixed as under Sec. 22(i)(a)(i):-

Pay drawn in the pay Pay fixed in the pay Date of next Scale of Rs.4000-100- scale of Rs.5500-175 increment 6000 as on 19-12.2004 w.e.f.19-12-2004 ___________________________________________________ Rs.5200/- Rs.5500/- 01-08-2005 Rs.5675/-

The above fixation of pay is subject to post audit check and in the light of audit observation. The overpayment made if any, in the form of arrears or otherwise, shall be recovered from him subsequently without any notice.

3. Copy of aforesaid order is taken on record. In view of above, counsel for the respondents submits that since the order dated 12.01.2011 has been passed granting the applicant 2nd ACP, this OA has become infructuous.

4. In view of above, this O.A. has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is disposed of having become infructuous. No costs.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)	  	   		         	     Member (J)

/kdr/
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
	
OA 758/2011

New Delhi this the 21st day of February, 2011 Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A) Shri Satpal Rishi S/o Late Shri Desh Raj Asstt. (E W.D-V) 1st Floor, Vikas Minar, Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi. R/o 392, Gali No.13, New Usman Pur (Pehla Pusta), Near Shastr Park, Delhi-110053. Applicant.

(By Advocate: Shri Malaya Chand) Versus Delhi Development Authority Through the Vice-Chairman, Vikas Sadan, INA, New Delhi. Respondent.

ORDER (ORAL) By Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J):

It is stated by the applicant that he had not been granted benefit of 2nd ACP even though his case is fully covered by judgement dated 22.07.2010 passed in OA 472/2010, which is annexed at page 14 of the OA. It is also stated that he had given a representation on 28.10.2010 but till date neither any reply has been received nor benefit of 2nd ACP has been extended to him. In these circumstances, he had no other option but to file the present OA.

2. We have heard counsel for the applicant. Since it is stated by the applicant that his case is fully covered by the judgment as mentioned above, it could first be ascertained by the respondents whether applicants claim is similar as claimed by the applicant in OA 472/2010 and whether relief claimed by him can be given or not. Therefore, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case by directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant.

3. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No costs.

(Dr.A.K.Mishra) (Meera Chhibber) Member(A) Member (J) /kdr/ Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi.

OA 721/2011

New Delhi this the 21st day of February, 2011 Honble Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K.Mishra, Member (A) Manju Solanki D/o Mohinder Singh Solanki R/o 54, Kanjhawala, Delhi-110081. Applicant.

(By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar) Versus

1. Govt. of N.C.T. Through its Chief Secretary Players Building, I.P.Ext. New Delhi.

2. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board, Through its Chairman F-16-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092.

3. Municipal Corporation of Delhi Through its Commissioner, Town Hall, Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006. Respondents.

ORDER (ORAL) By Mrs.Meera Chhibber, Member (J):

It is stated by the applicant that she had appeared in the examination for the post of Primary Teacher in MCD with post Code No. 016/2008 and the result was declared on 21.12.2009. Applicants name appeared in OBC category but her result was not declared and kept pending for the reasons which have not been mentioned. On the contrary, it is mentioned that result of some candidates is pended for completion of documentation, verification of identity card and clarification etc. It is further submitted by the applicant that she had sought information from DSSSB under RTI Act with regard to her case whereupon she was informed vide letter dated 27.07.2010 that case of the candidates is in process and same will be declared in due course.

2. It is in these circumstances, applicant has approached this Tribunal for a direction to respondents no.1 and 2 to select her for the post of primary teacher in MCD after fulfilling all other requirements and formalities, which are necessary.

3. We have heard counsel for the applicant. Since respondents have themselves stated that her case is in process, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case by directing the respondent no.2 to declare the result of the applicant and in case there is some impediment, give reasons to the applicant as to why her result cannot be declared. This exercise shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order under intimation to the applicant.

4. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No costs.

(Dr.A.K.Mishra) (Meera Chhibber) Member(A) Member (J) /kdr/ 21.02.2011

2. OA 672/2011 Present: Shri A.S.Dateer, counsel for applicant.

Counsel for the applicant is directed to place on record full recruitment rules for the post of Insect Collector. List this case on 07.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
.02.2011
4.
OA 717/2011

Present: Dr.D.C.Vohra, counsel for applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 07.03.2011. In the meantime, respondents are restrained from making any recovery from the salary of the applicant for the period of 14 days.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
5.
OA 720/2011

Present: Shri A.B.Kaushik, counsel for applicant.

Issue dasti notice to the respondents, returnable on 07.03.2011.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
6.
OA 721/2011

Present: Shri Ajay Kumar, counsel for applicant.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
7.
OA 732/2011

Present: Ms.Meenu Mainee, counsel for applicant.

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 05.04.2011.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
8.
OA 733/2011

Present: Shri T.D.Yadav for Shri Sushil Sharma, counsel for applicant.

Issue dasti notice to the respondents, returnable on 07.03.2011.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
9.
TA 756/2009

Present: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for applicant. Shri Karunesh Tondon, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
10
TA 803/2009

Present: Shri Vipin Prakash Vashisth, son of applicant. Shri Sanjeev Sabharwal, counsel for respondents.

Shri Vipin Prakash Vashisth, son of applicant seeks short adjournment as counsel for the applicant is not available today. Accordingly, list this case on 24.02.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
11
TA 823/2009

Present: Shri R.K.Anand, counsel for applicant. Shri Jayant Nath, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
12
TA 1465/2009

Present: Shri S.B.S.Vashisth, counsel for applicant. Shri Lalta Prasad for Ms.Jyoti Singh, counsel for respondents.

This matter has been remanded back from the Honble High Court. However, counsel for the respondents is not available today. Accordingly, list this case on 24.03.2011.

 

(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
13
OA 589/2010

Present: Shri Rajinder Khatter for Shri Manjeet Singh Reen, counsel for applicant. Shri J.Akhtar, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the applicant is reported to be unwell. Accordingly, list this case on 22.03.2011. Interim order to continue till the next date.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
14.
OA 1823/2010

Present: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for applicant. Shri Abhisek Sharma, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed two weeks time to file rejoinder. List this case on 08.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
15.
OA 1862/2010

Present: Shri Gyanendra Singh, counsel for applicant. Shri Rishi Prakash, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the applicant seeks and is allowed two weeks time to file rejoinder. List this case on 22.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
16.
OA 2040/2010

Present:	None for the parties.

On RFA, list this case on 22.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
17.
OA 2045/2010
MA 1641/2010

Present: Ms.Jaishree for Shri M.K.Bhardwaj, counsel for applicant. Shri Rajinder Khatter, counsel for respondents.

It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that he has wrongly noted date as 22.02.2011 in place of 21.02.2011. Accordingly list this case on 22.02.2011.

 

(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
18.
OA 2107/2010

Present: Shri D.S.Chaudhary, counsel for applicant. Shri Majoj Kr. departmental representative on behalf of respondents. Ms.P.K.Gupta, counsel for respondents.

List this case on 13.04.2011.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
19.
OA 2154/2010

Present: Shri Yogesh Kr.Chand counsel for applicant. Shri T.D.Yadav for Shri Vijay Pandita, counsel for respondents.

We are informed that Shri Vijay Pandita would be representing this case and seeks short adjournment to study the same. Accordingly, list this case on 01.03.2011. Registry is directed to show the name of Shri Vijay Pandita in place of Shri H.K.Gangwani as counsel for the respondents in future cause list.

	

(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
20.
OA 2828/2010

Present: Shri K.Vekatraman, counsel for applicant. Shri H.K.Gangwani, counsel for respondents.

It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that he shall be filing reply during the course of the day after serving a copy of the same on applicant, who may file rejoinder within three weeks. Accordingly, list this case on 01.04.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
21.
OA 2935/2010

Present: Shri O.N.Sharma, counsel for applicant. Md.Adeel Siddiqui, counsel for respondents.

It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that he shall be filing reply during the course of the day after serving a copy of the same on applicant, who may file rejoinder within two weeks. Accordingly, list this case on 13.04.2011. Interim order to continue till the next date.

		

(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
22.
OA 2580/2010

Present:	None for the parties.

On RFA, list this case on 30.03.2011.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
23.
OA 3712/2010

Present: Proxy counsel for Shri Javed Ahmed, counsel for applicant. None for the respondents.

Enabling the respondents to file reply within four weeks. Applicant may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List this case on 07.04.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
14.
OA 1823/2010

Present: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for applicant. Ms.P.K.Gupta, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
25.
OA 3829/2010

Present: Shri M.K.Kain, counsel for applicant. Shri Rishi Prakash, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed four weeks time to file reply. Applicant may file rejoinder within two weeks thereafter. List this case on 07.04.2011.


	
(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
26.
OA 3878/2010
MA 2929/2010

Present: Shri Rajesh Kr.Pathak, counsel for applicant. Shri R.K.Jain, counsel for respondents.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
14.
OA 1823/2010

Present: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, counsel for applicant. Ms.P.K.Gupta, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
28.
OA 05/2011

Present:	Applicant in person.

Shri Rahul Singh, counsel for respondents.

It is stated by the counsel for the respondents that reply has been filed today in the Registry vide Diary No.2413. A copy of the same has been served on applicant who appears in person. It is stated by the applicant that he has also filed rejoinder vide Diary No.2308. However, neither reply nor rejoinder is on record. Registry is directed to place reply as well as rejoinder on record before the next date. List this case on 31.03.2011 for final disposal. Registry is directed to show the name of Shri Rahul Singh in place of Shri Balendru Shekhar as counsel for the respondents in future cause list.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
29.
OA 07/2011
MA 01/2011

Present: Shri K.K.Sharma, counsel for applicant. Ms.P.K.Gupta, counsel for respondents.

Ms.P.K.Gupta has entered appearance on behalf of respondents. She seeks and is allowed four weeks time to file reply. Applicant may file rejoinder within one week thereafter. List this case on 13.04.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
30.
CP 808/2010
OA 1194/2009

Present:	Applicant in person.

Shri A.K.Singh, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the respondents seeks one weeks time to file compliance affidavit. Accordingly, list this case on 01.03.2011.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
30.
CP 808/2010
OA 1194/2009

Present: Ms Pragnya Routray, counsel for applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
32.
CP 897/2010
TA 1083/2010

Present: Shri V.K.Sharma, counsel for applicant. Shri Rahul Singh, counsel for respondents.

We are informed by the counsel for the respondents that the DPC is likely to be held tomorrow, therefore, they may be given sometime to file compliance affidavit. In view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondents, they are allowed two weeks time to file compliance affidavit. List this case on 08.03.2011.


(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
30.
CP 808/2010
OA 1194/2009

Present: Ms Pragnya Routray, counsel for applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
34.
CP 29/2011
OA 3566/2010

Present: Shri K.K.Patel, counsel for applicant. Shri Krishan Kumar, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the respondents seeks and is allowed one weeks time to file reply. Accordingly, list this case on 01.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
30.
CP 808/2010
OA 1194/2009

Present: Ms Pragnya Routray, counsel for applicant. Shri A.K.Singh, counsel for respondents.




(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
36.
MA 39/2011
CP 217/2005
OA 399/2001

Present: Shri Sachin Chauhan counsel for applicant. Applicant no.3 in person.

Shri S.M.Arif, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the respondents seeks three days time to file reply. List this case on 28.02.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
37.
MA 2986/2010
CP 198/2006
OA 389/2003

Present:	Applicant in person.

Shri Anil Behl, counsel for respondent no.1 Counsel for the applicant is reported to be busy in Honble Supreme Court. Accordingly list this case on 20.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
38.
MA 140/2011
TA 757/2009

Present: Shri Vishwendra Verma, counsel for applicant.

Issue notice on MA 140/2011 to the respondents, returnable on 31.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
39.
MA 508/2011
OA 3199/2009

Present: Shri G.D.Bhandari, counsel for applicant.

Issue notice on MA 508/2011 to the respondents, returnable on 06.04.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
40.
MA 450/2011
OA 916/2010

Present: Shri R.K. Jain, counsel for applicant. Shri Nasir Ahmed, counsel for respondents.

Counsel for the applicant submits that he would provide copy of MA 450/2011 during the course of the day. Accordingly, list this case on 03.03.2011.



(Dr.A.K.Mishra)						(Meera Chhibber)
  Member(A)		   		         	     Member (J)


/kdr/
21.02.2011
39.
MA 508/2011
OA 3199/2009