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 1, Cited by 1]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Sunil Kumar Chaudhary vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 21 October, 2008

      

  

  

 Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench

OA No. 1356/2007
MA No. 1105/2008

New Delhi, this the 21st day of October, 2008

Honble Mr. Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman
Honble Mr. Shailendra Pandey, Member (A)

Sunil Kumar Chaudhary
S/o Sh. Sant Ram Chaudhary,
R/o B-122, Mahendru Enclave,
Opp. Model Town-III,
Delhi  110 033.							Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri S.K. Gupta)

Versus

Govt. of NCT of Delhi through:

1.	Chief Secretary,
	Delhi Secretariat, 
Players Building, IP Estate,
	New Delhi- 110 002.

2.	Principal Secretary (Home),
	Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Delhi Secretariat,
	Players Building, IP Estate, 
New Delhi- 110 002.

3.	Chief Fire Officer,
Delhi Fire Service Headquarter,
Connaught Circus,
New Delhi  110 001.

4.	Union Public Service Commission,
	Through its Secretary,
	Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
	New Delhi.							Respondents

(By Advocate: Sh.Rajinder Khattar for Sh. Ajesh Luthra for official 
                     respondents & Mrs. Alka Sharma for UPSC)

ORDER (ORAL)

Justice V.K. Bali, Chairman:

Prayer of the applicant in this Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of judgment dated 25.09.2002 passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 562/2001, which has been affirmed by the Honble High Court of Delhi vide its judgments dated 26.05.2006 in CWP No. 678/2005 and 20.04.2007 in Revision Petition No. 31/07, which has since even been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court.

2. Mr. S.K. Gupta, counsel for the applicant says that since order passed in OA No. 562/2001 is applicable to all similarly situate employees, the case of the applicant has been considered for promotion but he has been ignored. Counsel further states that the applicant would challenge his non-promotion and the reasons whereof by filing separate Original Application. He seeks permission to withdraw this Original Application with liberty to file the fresh one for the relief, as indicated above. There is no objection to the prayer made by the applicants counsel.

3. In view of the above, with leave and liberty, this Original Application is dismissed as withdrawn.

(Shailendra Pandey)							(V.K. Bali)
Member (A)								Chairman

/naresh/