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

Smt Madhurima Gupta vs Union Of India on 22 November, 2023

                              1

  Item No. 7                                    O.A. No. 4/2014



               CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                  PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
                    (Circuit Sitting At Nainital)

                         O.A. No. 4/2014

                This the 22nd Day of November, 2023

           Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
         Hon'ble Dr. Chhabilendra Roul, Member (A)

1-Smt. Madhurima Gupta wife of Shiv Shankar Lal
Resident of E-1071, Rajendra Nagar, Bareilly,

2-Gorakh Nath Sharma son of Late Mahatam Sharma
resident of A 6/6, IVRI Campus, Izatnagar, Bareilly,

3-Deep Chandra Joshi son of Sri Pitamber Dutt Joshi
resident of H.No.-5, Mukteshwar, District- Nainital, IVRI
Campus
                                           ....Applicants
(By Advocate : None)

                             VERSUS
1-Secretary ICAR (Indian Council of Agricultural Research),
Krishi Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi,

2-Director, Indian Veterinary Research Institute (IVRI),
Izatnagar, Bareilly,

3-Joint Veterinary Director Research              Administration,
Institute Indian (IVRI), Izatnagar, Bareilly,

4-Assistant Administrative Officer, IVRI, Camp Office at
Mukteshwar, District- Nainital
                                          .... Respondents

(By Advocate: Mr. N.P. Singh)
                              2

     Item No. 7                             O.A. No. 4/2014



                        ORDER (ORAL)

Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J) Even in revised call, there was no representation on behalf of the applicant. This matter is listed for final hearing.

2. It is seen from the record of proceeding dated 20.10.2023, there was no representation on behalf of the applicant. Today also neither the applicant nor is his counsel present.

3. It seems that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing the case any further. Therefore, the OA stands dismissed in default and on account of non prosecution.





       (Dr. Chhabilendra Roul)             (Manish Garg)
         Member (A)                         Member (J)

/sm/akshaya/