Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Nanu Singh Gill Son Of S. Shiv Charan ... vs Union Of India on 27 March, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.278/HR/2012 Chandigarh, this the 27TH day of March, 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J). HON'BLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A). Nanu Singh Gill son of S. Shiv Charan Singh, R/o H.No.76-B, Ram Nagar, Ambala Cantt. Haryana. Applicant Versus 1. Union of India, through Secretary to Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi. 2. The Director General, Directorate General of Defence Estates, (ADM Section), Ministry of Defence, Raksha Sampada Bhawan, Ulaanbaatar Marg, Delhi Cantt. 3. The Pr. Director, DE Ministry of Defence, Western Command, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh. 4. The Defence Estates Officer, Ambala Circle, Ambala Cantt. 5. Controller General of Defence Accounts, Lekha Bhawan, Ulaanbaatar Marg, Delhi Cantt. 6. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Western Command, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9-A, Chandigarh. 7. The Director (L&C), Ministry of Defence, Sena Bhawan, B-Wing, New Delhi. 8. Chief Excutive Officer, Cantt Board Ambala Cantt. 9. Area Account Office, Pay and Pension, C.D.A. Western Command, Jalandhar Circle, Jalandhar Cantt. 10. Chief Executive Officer, Cant Board Amritsar Cantt. 11. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (Pensions), Draupadi Ghat, Allahbad. 12. Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069. Respondents Present: Sh. H.P. Singh Ishar, counsel for the applicant. O R D E R (Oral)
BY HON'BLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER(J) Heard. No formal notice is required to be issued to the respondents since service is waived by Sh. Rohit Sharma, advocate, vice Sh. Deepak Agnihotri, Senior Standing Counsel for U.O.I, on behalf of Respondents No.1 to 11 and Sh. B.B. Sharma, standing counsel for UPSC on behalf of Respondent No.12.
The learned counsel for the applicant states that since legal notice to the concerned authority for redressal for his grievance is pending for consideration, therefore, this O.A. may be disposed of with time-bound directions to the respondents to decide his legal notice.
After careful consideration of the matter, the prayer of the applicant is found to be genuine as it is prerogative of the respondents to look into the grievance of the public servant as per law.
Resultantly, the competent authority is directed to decide the legal notice of the applicant as per law and rules, supported with reasons, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and communicate the same to him. Needless to say that we have not expressed our opinion so far as the merits of the case are concerned.
With these observations and directions above, this O.A stands disposed of with no orders as to costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Place: Chandigarh. Dated: 27.3.2012. KR* 8 3 O.A.278/HR/12