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 Ms. Neelam Shami Rao And Others on 25 July, 2024

                              1



              CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

                       CHANDIGARH BENCH

                   (CIRCUIT BENCH - SHIMLA)

              C.P.NO.063/89/2024 IN O.A.NO.221/2021

                  Shimla, the 25th day of July, 2024


     HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)


     Inder Singh Dhari S/o Late Sh. Sohan Lal R/o Village Kuhal P.O.

     Deothi Tehsil Rampur Busher, Shimla. H.P


                                                       ...Petitioner


(BY ADVOCATE: SH. ANKIT PROXY FOR SH. NEERAJ KUMAR SHARMA)


                              VERSUS


1.   Ms. Neelam Shami Rao (Central Provident Fund Commissioner),

14 Bikaji Cama Places, New Delhi.

2.   Rakesh   Kumar    Employees'   Provident   Fund    Commissioner,

Regional Office, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Shimla.

3.   Ms.   Sumita Damra,    Secretary   Union   of   India (Labour     &

Employment), New Delhi.




                                                     ...Respondent(s)


(BY ADVOCATE: SH. RAHUL MAHAJAN ALONG WITH SH. RAMESH

ADHIKARI, SECTION SUPERVISOR)




                          O R D E R (Oral)

           Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):


1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. 2

2. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the order dated 30.05.2024, whereby, the matter has been decided by the competent authority, the same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents.

3. In view of such position, our order has been complied with. Accordingly, instant Contempt Petition is closed. The respondents are discharged of notice of contempt.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liberty may be granted to challenge the same. Needless to say, the applicant is always at liberty to approach the appropriate forum of law, because the matter has not been decided on merits.

(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (J) ms*