Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
D.V.N. Satyanarayana Murthy vs The Union Of India on 28 August, 2008
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH :: HYDERABAD O.A.No.527 of 2008 Date of Order: 28.08.2008 Between: D.V.N. Satyanarayana Murthy ..Applicant And 1.The Union of India, Rep. By its Secretary, Department of Posts, 1st Floor, Dah Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi. 2.The Chief Engineer (Civil), Postal South & West Zone, 1st Floor, Near Satellite Bus Stand, RMS Bhawan, GEP PO Compound, Mysore Road, Bangalore 560 009. 3.The Superintending Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Circle, 3rd Floor, Sion P.O. Building, Sion, Mumbai 400 022. 4.The Executive Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Division, Gandhinagar Post Office Building, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad 500 080. 5.The Assistant Engineer (Civil), Postal Civil Sub-Division, Gandhi Nagar Post Office Building, Gandhi Nagar, Hyderabad 500 080. ..Respondents Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P. Venkata Rama Sarma for Mr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Sr. CGSC CORAM: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. LAKSHMANA REDDY, Vice-Chairman The Hon'ble Mr. R. SANTHANAM, Member (Admn). ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman) Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The grievance of the applicant is that though he appeared in the examination for filling up the posts by way of promotion to 20% quota of Works Clerk Grade II of Group 'C' cadre, he was not given promotion while giving promotion to two candidates in spite of the fact that he possesses all the qualifications prescribed in the notification. It is contended by the applicant that as per the information furnished under the Right to Information Act, he got 93 marks out of 200 marks in the first paper and 24 marks out of 100 marks in the second paper and that though there are 4 vacancies for the year 2007, only two vacancies are filled up. The further grievance of the applicant is that though he submitted representations on 15.03.2008 and 01.07.2008, the respondents have not given him promotion nor did they dispose of his representations.
3. Learned Sr. Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that as the applicant has submitted that his representations have not been disposed of, this Tribunal may dispose of this application by directing the respondents to dispose of those representations by prescribing a time limit.
4. As the applicant has already submitted representations and those representations have not yet been disposed of, we consider it fit to dispose of this application at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to dispose of the representations made by the applicant dated 15.03.208 and 01.07.2008 by passing a speaking order taking into consideration the contentions raised by the applicant in the present application also within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and communicate the same to the applicant. The applicant is at liberty to approach this Tribunal in case he is aggrieved by the manner in which his representations are disposed of.
5. In the result, OA is disposed of with the above directions. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R. SANTHANAM) (P. LAKSHMANA REDDY)
MEMBER (Admn) VICE- CHAIRMAN
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008
(Dictated in Open Court)