Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
Shymala H Kumar vs M/O Finance on 28 November, 2023
-- . we - oN 10. 1of6 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH OA/310/00598/2015 DATED TUESDAY, THE 28" DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE SHRI. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A) Shyamala H. Kumar, D/o Radhakrishnan; Parvathi Ravishankar, . D/o. T.S. Ramakrishnan; 5.5. Jayasree, D/o. Subramanian; T.S. Ranganayaki, D/o. T.S. Subramanian; P. Padmaja Rani, D/o T.N. Parthasarathy; S. Kala, D/o P. Subramanian; * §. Poomadhy, D/o P. Sadiyan; GN. Jayalakshmi, W/o. G.V. Natarajan; Sudha Ganesh, D/o. P.S. Ananthanarayanan; Subbulakshmi Parthasarathy, D/o S. Yegna Subramanian; BSv' ii. 12, 13. 14, 15. 16. 17. 18. 19, 20. 21. 22. 23. 2 of 6 R. Mythili, D/o K.V. Rangachari; C.K. Shyamala devi, D/o. N.K. Karunakaran; Padmaja Rajaraman, D/o T. V. Srinivasan; _ Usha Guruprasad, D/o. S. Ramachandran; Kalpana Raghavendran, D/o. G. Nagarajan; Baby Naaz Sebastian, D/o. J. Sakayaraj; Janaki Ramakrishnan, D/o G. Subramanian; " Rani Radhakrishnan, D/o. N.G. Venkateswaran; .K. Swarnamala, D/o. S. Chandrasekar; Lalitha Balasubramanian, D/o, P, Narayanaswamy; C. Thangammal, D/o S. Prasanna Venkateswaran; Ramamani Ramagopal, + D/o. M.S. Dehvanadhan; Parvathi Subramanian, D/o. K.S. Lakshmanan 24, 25, 26. 27. 28. 29, 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 30f6 K. Meénakumari, > D/o. M. Krishnan, U.G. Lakshmi, Dio late U. Govinda Rao S. Umadevi, D/o late V. Srinivasan; N. Jeeva, D/o R. Narayanasamy P.B. Sudha, D/o. P.B. Ramanna; , S. Meenakshi, D/o. N. Srinivasan; V. Karpagam, D/o. R. Natarajan; Lakshmi Chandrasekaran, Do. late V. Ramani; AN, Devakumar, So/o. A. Nithyanandam; Nalinikumari Srinivasamoorthy, * D/o late Veerabathiran; Malika Moien Kaleem, D/o Ghouse Mohideen; P. Vedhavathi, D/o. Lakshminarayana Pattam; S. Ganesan, S/o. B.E. Swaminathan; 4of 6 37. R. Jammuna, D/o P.D. Ramalingam All are working as Senior Accountants Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 018. > sesso Applicants (Advocate: M/s. S. Sadasharam) Versus 1. Union of India Rep. by the The Comptroller and Auditor General of India, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-110 002; 2. Principal Accountant General (A & EB), Tamilnadu, " Chennai 600 018; 3. P. Prasad Rao 4, K. Seetha 3 and 4 are working as Senior Accountants Office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E), Tamil Nadu, Chennai 600 018. . s+ Respondents/Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. V. Vijay Shankar) 5 of 6 > ORAL ORDER
(Hon'ble Smt. Lata Baswaraj Pane, Member(J) By this Original Application, the applicants are seeking the following reliefs:-
"to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.02.2015 passed in Pr AG (A&E)/Estt. /GLIMN/2014-15/492, 493,, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 527, 528, 529 on the file of the 2"! Respondent and direct the Respondents to sanction the grade pay of Rs. 5,400/- to the applicants on par with their juniors in the 2" respondent establishment from the date on which the grade of pay of Rs. 5,400/- was sanctioned and granted to the juniors following the orders passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 966 and 967 of 2009 dated 29.12.2010 and confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in W.P.Nos. 18611 and 18612 of 2011 by order dated 19.03.2014 and pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.."
2. When the matter is taken up, neither the applicants nor his counsel is found to be present, even though the matter is listed under the caption 'For Dismissal'. However, Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, Ld. Counsel for the respondents, is present.
6 of6
3. It is seen from the record that, on 27.09.2023, none had appeared for the applicant. Thereafter, when the matter was posted to 20.11.2023, on that day also, none appeared for the applicant, and, accordingly, the matter was posted today, i.e., 28.11.2023, under the dismissal caption. Even though, the matter is listed under the dismissal caption today, neither the applicant nor his counsel is present.
4, It seems, the applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the case, any further. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed for default. No costs.