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 - Delhi

N Ramana Reddy vs M/O Personnel,Public Grievances And ... on 12 April, 2018

                  Central Administrative Tribunal
                          Principal Bench

                         OA No.1031/2016

              New Delhi, this the 12th day of April, 2017

               Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
              Hon'ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

N.Ramana Reddy,
S/o N.Seshaiah,
Aged about 61 years,
Assistant (Retired),
CAT, Bangalore,
R/at PH-1, Sai Excellency,
Hennur Cross,
Bangalore-560 043.

Address for service

B.S.Venkatesh Kumar,
Advocate,
"Vaishnavi"
No.19, 1st Cross, P.F.Compound,
Devasandra, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore-560 036.
                                                    ... Applicant
(None)
                               Versus

1.   The Principal Registrar,
     Central Administrative Tribunal,
     Principal Bench,
     Copernicus Marg,
     New Delhi-110001.
2.   The Registrar,
     Central Administrative Tribunal,
     Bangalore Bench, BDA Complex,
     Indiranagar,
     Bangalore-560 038.
                                       2
                                                                 OA 1031/2016




3.      Union of India represented by the
        Secretary to Government,
        Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances
        And Pensions (Department of
        Personnel and Training),
        North Block, New Delhi-110001.
                                                   ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar)

                              ORDER (ORAL)

Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) :-

On 19.12.2017, the following order was passed :-
"In terms of the order dated 09.10.2017, the learned counsel for respondents submits that the counter already filed by them before the transfer of this matter to the Principal Bench of this Tribunal shall be sufficient and the same may be considered for disposal of the OA and that they are not intending to file any additional or supplementary or fresh counter now.
It is seen that there was no representation on behalf of the applicant on 08.08.2017, 09.10.2017 and even today. However, as an indulgence, list on 11.04.2018."

2. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant. Hence, the OA is dismissed in default and for non prosecution.





     ( Nita Chowdhury)                    ( V. Ajay Kumar )
          Member (A)                          Member (J)

'rk'