Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Ravi Garg vs Central Scientific Instruments ... on 3 March, 2021
1- O.A. No.060/235/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No.060/235/2021
Chandigarh, this the 3rd of March 2021
HON'BLE MRS. AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER (A)
Ravi Garg aged about 39 years son on Sh. Megh Raj Garg, B-
60, CSIO Colony, Sector 30, Chandigarh - 160030.
....Applicant
(BY: Ms. Sonia Mehta for Mr. S.S. Pathania, Advocate)
Versus
1. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, Anusandhan
Bhawan, 2, Rafi Marg, New Delhi - 110001. Through its
Director General.
2. Central Scientific Instruments Organisation, Sector 30,
Chandigarh-160030 through its Director.
3. House Allotment Committee, CSIO, Sector 30, Chandigarh
- 160030 through its Chairman.
... .Respondents
(BY: Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate)
O R D E R(Oral)
AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER (A):
1. Heard the learned proxy counsel for the applicant. She states that the applicant is having 70% disability and his wife is also 40% disabled. They are presently residing in Type-III accommodation allotted to them by respondent no. 2. The applicant applied for ground floor due to his disability. However, the request was rejected vide order dated 05.02.2020 (Annexure A-5). Thereafter, the applicant represented and his representation was duly 2- O.A. No.060/235/2021 forwarded to the Joint Secretary, Council of Scientific & Industrial Research, vide letter dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure A-6). The learned proxy counsel further states that there has been no decision on the request of the applicant for allotment of ground floor despite lapse of over one year since his representation has been forwarded to the Joint Secretary, CSIR. Hence the O.A.
2. Issue notice to the respondents.
3. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, learned counsel, appears and accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents.
4. At this stage, the learned proxy counsel for the applicant states that she will be satisfied in case directions are issued to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the applicant within a specified time period.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents does not object to this limited prayer of the learned proxy counsel for the applicant.
6. In view of the above, I hereby direct the competent authority amongst the respondents to consider and take a decision on the representation of the applicant, if not already taken, by passing a reasoned and speaking order, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order so passed shall be communicated to the applicant.
7. The O.A. is disposed of accordingly.
3- O.A. No.060/235/2021
8. Needless to mention that this order does not reflect any opinion or an expression on the merits of the case.
(AJANTA DAYALAN) MEMBER (A) 'mw'