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 - Chandigarh

Neelam Rani vs D/O Post on 2 August, 2022

                           1

           CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                  CHANDIGARH BENCH

               Hearing by Video Conferencing

                     O.A. No.060/650/2021


          Chandigarh, this the 2nd day of August, 2022

      HON'BLE SH. SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J)
      (On video conference from Central Administrative
     Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh)

     HON'BLE SH. RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
     (On video conference from Central Administrative
     Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore)
                               ---
     Neelam Rani wife of Sh. Omkar Nath Kakkar, aged 61
     years, retired SPM Patti, now resident of Kakkar Street,
     near Shivala Mandir, House No. 136/12, Gard Bazar,
     Tarn-Taran, Punjab-143401
                                                  (Group-c)

                                                ...Applicant
     (BY ADVOCATE: D.R. Sharma)


                       VERSUS

1.   Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of
     Communications, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan,
     New Delhi-110001. ([email protected])

2.   The Director Postal Services, Punjab Circle, Sector-17,
     Chandigarh-160017 ([email protected])

3.   The Superintendent of Post Offices, Amritsar Division,
     Amritsar-143001. ([email protected])


                                            ...Respondents
     (BY ADVOCATE: Sh. Sanjay Goyal)
                             2




                        O R D E R(Oral)

  Per: SURESH KUMAR MONGA, MEMBER (J):


At the very outset, Sh. Sanjay Goyal, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel stated that the relief claimed herein has already been granted to the applicant and, therefore, nothing survives in the present original application.

2. The fact as stated by Sh. Goyal, has not been disputed by Sh. D.R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant .

3. The original application is, therefore, disposed of having been rendered infructuous.





(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA)            (SURESH KUMAR MONGA)
      Member (A)                        Member (J)


  ms*
 3