Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sarvesh Dixit vs M/O Human Resource Development on 28 October, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
R.A. No.228/2016 in
O.A. No. 1334/2016
New Delhi, this the 28th day of October, 2016
HON'BLE MR. P.K. BASU, MEMBER (A)
HON'BLE DR. BRAHM AVTAR AGRAWAL, MEMBER (J)
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Human Resources Development,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi,
Through its Chief Secretary,
Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
3. Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat Building,
Civil Lines, New Delhi-110054.
4. Department of Finance,
Through its Principal Secretary,
Government of NCT of Delhi,
4th Level, A Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002.
5. Deputy Director of Education,
IEDSS, Government of NCT of Delhi,
Amrita Shergil School Building,
Behind Lady Shri Ram College,
Lajpat Nagar-IV,
Delhi-110024. ..Applicants
Vs.
1. Sarvesh Dixit,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 27 years,
2
RA 228/16 in OA 1334/16
S/o Shri Kamla Kant Dixit,
R/o 263, Dheerpur Nirankari Colony,
New Delhi-110009.
2. Sanjit Kumar,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 25 years,
S/o Shri Ashok Prasad Das,
R/o H.No. 140, Nehru Enclave,
Alipur, Delhi-110036.
3. Nandan Kumar,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 28 years,
S/o Shri Awadesh Das,
R/o A-416, Gali Chaupal,
Shalamar Village, Delhi.
4. Mukesh Kumar Pal,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 30 years,
S/o Shri Sher Bahadur Pal,
R/o GBSSS Joshi Colony, Delhi.
5. Rajinder Prasad,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 34 years,
S/o Shri Vaidyanath Prasad,
R/o 1435, Jeetpur Gomo Thana 21,
Dhanbad-828401.
6. Ganesh Kumar Verma,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 32 years,
S/o Shri Moti Lal,
F-12/A, Gali No.29,
Mahendra Park, Delhi-110033.
7. Gopal Keshari,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 29 years,
S/o Shri Om Prakash Keshari,
R/o F-12/A, Gali No.29,
3
RA 228/16 in OA 1334/16
Mahendra Park, Delhi-110033.
8. Santosh Kumar,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 25 years,
S/o Shri Murahu Prasad,
R/o GBSSS Sirapur, Delhi-110042.
9. Shailendra Kumar Mourya,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 26 years,
S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Mourya,
R/o F-12/A, Gali No.29,
Mahendra Park, Delhi-110033.
10. Gyanendra Nath Singh,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 27 years,
S/o Shri Devendra Nath Singh,
R/o Shahdara, GT Road, GBSSS.
11. Mukesh Yadav,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 24 years,
S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Yadav,
R/o 131, Kunwar Singh Nagar,
Nangloi, Delhi.
12. Brajendra Pal,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 32 years,
S/o Shri Bhagwan Dutt Singh,
R/o P-5/134, Nagli Vihar Extn.
Delhi-110043.
13. Ashish Rai,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 25 years,
S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad Rai,
R/o 818, Burari, Delhi-110054.
14. Sunil Kumar Yadav,
Special Education Teacher,
4
RA 228/16 in OA 1334/16
Aged 27 years,
S/o Shri Paras Nath Yadav,
R/o SKV, Vijay Nagar, Delhi.
15. Nishant Rai,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 26 years,
S/o Shri Atma Ram,
R/o Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
GBSSS, Delhi.
16. Jai Prakash Tiwari,
Special Education Teacher,
Aged 30 years,
S/o Shri Dayashankar Tiwari,
R/o SBV, Lajpat Nagar,
Ring Road Shaheed Hemu Colony,
New Delhi .. Respondents
ORDER (In Circulation)
Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A) This Review Application (RA) has been filed against the order dated 16.05.2016 passed by us in OA 1334/2016.
2. We have gone through the RA. We do not find anything in RA which suggests an error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason for a review. The respondents have stated that it is Respondent No.1 who is responsible for release of grants and hence in para 8 "Respondent" be replaced by "Respondent No.1." This is not an error. The respondents are jointly and severally responsible for execution of our order. No such distinction can be made. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law. We refer, in particular, to the judgments of the Hon'ble 5 RA 228/16 in OA 1334/16 Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and State of West Bengal and others Vs. Kamalsengupta and another, (2008) 8 SCC 612.
3. The RA, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is, therefore, dismissed in circulation.
(Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal) (P.K. Basu)
Member (J) Member (A)
/dkm/