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

Inder Singh vs Central Provident Fund Commissioner on 29 November, 2022

                              1

              CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
               CHANDIGARH BENCH, CHANDIGARH

                       CIRCUIT BENCH AT SHIMLA

                         O.A. No. 63/221/2021


                 This the 29th day of November, 2022

      HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR , MEMBER (J)



    Inder Singh Dhari Son of Late Sh. Sohan Lal, resident of Village

    Kuhal PO Deothi Tehsil Rampur Bushaher District Shimla HP

                                                       ...Applicant

    (BY ADVOCATE: SH. N.K. SHARMA)


                           VERSUS

1. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, 14 Bikhaji Cama Place,
  New Delhi through its Commissioner.


2. Regional Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional
  Office, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Shimla thorugh
  it's Commissioner.



                                                   ...Respondents
(BY ADVOCATE: SH. ANSHUL BANSAL PROXY FOR SH. ASEEM RAI
ALONG WITH SH. RAMESH ADHIKARI, SECTION SUPERVISIOR)
                           2

                     O R D E R(Oral)

Per : SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR (J):-

1. In compliance to our earlier order dated 18.10.2022, Sh.

Anshul Bansal appearing as proxy for Sh. Aseem Rai, learned counsel for the respondents submits that on the instructions of the official respondents it is submitted that the matter is being referred to Union of India and is under submission to the competent authority along with the inquiry report and other findings as had been received.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant will be satisfied if the competent authority is directed to decide the case of the applicant in a time bound manner.

3. Learned proxy for the respondents has no objection if the competent authority is directed to decide the case of the applicant as per law on the above line.

4. This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that natural justice will be met if competent authority is directed to decide the case of the applicant in time bound manner.

5. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to submit the case of the applicant along with the inquiry report and other findings to the competent authority within one month from today and the competent authority shall pass a reasoned 3 and speaking order after affording personal opportunity of hearing to the applicant, qua the matter of the applicant within three months thereafter.

6. With this observation, this original application is finally disposed of.

(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) Member (J) ms*