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 1, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras

P Rajan vs Central Water Commission on 31 January, 2024

1 0A/310/06085/2020

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00085/2020

Dated Wednesday 31" day of January Two Thousand Twenty Four

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. MANISH GARG MEMBER (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, MEMBER (A)

P.Rajan,

Son of Late V.G.Perumal,

No.4, A3, Andavar Nag,

4% Street,

Kodambakkam,

Chennai -- 600 024. vee Applicant

By Advocate M/s. S Ramaswamyrajarajan

Vs
Union of India, Rep.by
1. The Secretary,
Establishment -- XI, Central Water Commission,
Sewa Bhawan,
REK-Puram,
New Delhi -- 110 006.

2. The Under Secretary,
Establishment -- XI,

Central Water Commission,
Sewa Bhawan,
R.K.Puram,
New Delhi -- 110 006.

3. The Chief Engineer,

Central Water Commission,

Sewa Bhawan,

R.K.Puram,

New Delhi -- 110 006. we Respondents

By Advocate Mr.M.Kishore Kumar SPC

AS


2 OA/310/00085/2020

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member(J)) In the instant OA, the applicant seeks the following relief:

"i. To quash the impugned order F.No. 25/2/2017- EsttXI (Part- 1/1157, dated 30.08.2019 passed by the 2" respondent, ii. To direct the respondents to grant the benefit of Modified Flexible Complementing Scheme to the applicant as per the 7 CPC recommendation and to grant consequential benefits on revising the pay and allowances with effect from 01.01.2016 and ili. To pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem and proper in the circumstances of the case with cost and thus render justice."

2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, no representation was made on behalf of the applicant. No request made for pass over.

2. As per the records made available, appearance on behalf of the applicant has been erratic.

3. It seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter.

4. In view of the above, the OA is dismissed for default. No order as to costs.