Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Deepak Namdeo More vs M/O Defence on 19 June, 2018
1 OA No. 125 Of 2018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAI.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.125/2018
Date Of Decision:- 19th June, 2018.
CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI. R. VIJAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A).
Deepak Namdeo More,
Sr. Material Assistant (Retd.)
(Central Armed Forces Vehicle Depot,
Khadki, Pune 03.
Age 59 years.
(R/at: B-1/22, Samrat Garden,
Behind Vaibhav Theatre,
Hadapsar, Pune 28.
....Applicant
(Applicant by Advocate Shri. S.P.Saxena)
Versus
1. The Union of India, through
The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, DHQ.P.O.,
South Block, New Delhi-11.
2. The Officer-in-Charge
A.O.C. Records, Secunderabad.
3. The Commandant
Central Armed Forces
Vehicle Depot, Khadki,
Pune 411003.
(Respondents by Advocate Shri. P.Khosla)
....Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
1. Today, when the case was called Shri. S.P.Saxena, learned counsel for applicant and Shri. P.Khosla, learned 2 OA No. 125 Of 2018 counsel for respondents, heard both of them.
2. During the hearing on 02.04.2018, it was mentioned by respondents that the applicant had not filled up pension forms as required by the department. It appears that the applicant is in two minds whose name he should enter as his wife but that is upto him to decide based on the legality of the issue and it is not for the Tribunal to assist him in filling up his pension form. At this stage, it is clear that there is no cause of action for the applicant and the case is accordingly dismissed.
3. The learned counsel for applicant desires one week's time since the reply of the respondents was seen by him only now during the hearing. It was pointed out to the learned counsel that the reply has not been taken cognizance by this Court since 3 OA No. 125 Of 2018 the essential contention, as stated by the learned counsel for respondents, was that the applicant had not filled up pension forms required by the department. This matter has already been discussed in the presence of the learned proxy counsel for the applicant two months back and no steps had been taken thereafter. It is in these circumstances, that no purpose is seen in allowing one more week for the learned counsel for applicant to examine this matter or to take instructions since this Court has no role at the present moment in this matter. No costs.
(R. Vijaykumar) Member (A) srp