Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
R Vasanthi vs M/O Railways on 3 March, 2025
1 OA 310/1155/2022
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA 310/01155/2022
Dated Monday the 3rd day of March Two Thousand Twenty Five
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. VEENA KOTHAVALE, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. SISIR KUMAR RATHO, Member (A)
R. Vasanthi,
W/o Stalin,
& D/o K. Rajagopal,
Residing at:
No.19/30, Nehruji Nagar 2nd Street,
Jothi Nagar Post, Arakkonam Taluk,
Ranipet District, Pin Code: 631001. .... Applicant
By Advocate M/s. T. N. Sugesh
Vs
1.The Union of India,
Rep by the General Manager (Personnel),
Southern Railway, Chennai - 600003.
2. The Chief Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai-600003.
3. The Additional Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem-636005.
4. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway, Salem Division,
Salem-636005.
5. The Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway,
Salem Division,
Salem-636005. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. Su. Srinivasan, SCGSC
2 OA 310/1155/2022
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Veena Kothavale, Member (J)) In the present OA, the applicant has sought the following relief:
"To to call for the records relating to the Impugned Order of the second respondent in Order No P (A)86/2022/844 dated 31.05.2022 confirming the Appellate Order passed by the third respondent herein in No SA/CON/16/123 dated 17.08.2011 in so far as reduction of pay from Rs.9040/- in Pay Band-1 Rs.5200-20200 with GP Rs.2400/- to the pay of Rs.7510/- in Pay Band Rs.5200-20200 with GP Rs.2400/-, for a period of three years with cumulative effect is concerned and in so far as the loss of seniority and treating the period from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of joining as non-duty, is concerned and set aside the same and direct the Respondents (2) and (3) to grant the said benefits and to pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus Render Justice."
2. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the applicant has filed memo stating that the applicant does not want to press the OA and he has made an endorsement to that effect.
3. Accordingly, OA is dismissed as not pressed.
(Sisir Kumar Ratho) (Veena Kothavale)
Member (A) Member (J)
LM 03.03.2025