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 - Madras

N Jothi Babu vs M/O Railways on 18 February, 2019

                                        1                       OA 703/2017


                         Central Administrative Tribunal
                                 Madras Bench

                                OA/310/00703/2017

         Dated Monday the 18th day of February Two Thousand Nineteen

                                   PRESENT

                         Hon'ble Mr. T.Jacob, Member(A)


N.Jothi Babu
S/o S.Neelakantan
25/33, Namasivaya Street,
Korrukkupet,
Chennai-21.                                 .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s.V.Ajoy Khose

Vs.

   1. Union of India, rep by its
      General Manager,
      Southern Railway,
      Park Town,
      Chennai-3.
   2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
      Southern Railway, Chennai Division,
      Personnel Branch,
      Chennai-3.                           .. Respondents
By Advocate Mr.D.Hariprasad
                                              2                              OA 703/2017




                                  ORAL ORDER

[Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr.T.Jacob, Member(A)] The applicant has filed this OA seeking to set aside three orders of the 2 nd respondent in M/PB/CS/22/137/2006 dated 17.6.2009, 22.10.2009 and 11.3.2010 respectively and to consider his request for compassionate appointment in any one of the posts in Group-D service without reference to and without taking diabetes as a medical disqualification for appointment and to give him appointment on compassionate ground forthwith for the post which he was originally sought to be considered or in any other similar posts in Group-D service with effect from the date of original rejection, ie., from 17.6.2009 with all consequential benefits.

2. The respondents have entered appearance and have filed the reply statement. However, today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the relief sought by the applicant had already been granted and he produces a letter dated 06.7.2018 to this effect. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicant corroborates the same.

3. Taking into consideration the letter dated 06.7.2018 and the above submission made by both sides, nothing survives in the OA and is liable to be dismissed.

4. Hence, the OA is dismissed as infructuous. No costs.

(T.Jacob) Member(A) 18.02.2019 /G/