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 - Delhi

Shri Mukhtiar Singh vs Sanjay Singh on 25 May, 2015

      

  

   

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH

C.P. No.107/2015 in
O.A. No. 316/2013

New Delhi this the 26th day of May, 2015

Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)

Shri Mukhtiar Singh, Aged 46 years
S/o Shri Narain Singh
R/o Quarter No.102
Type-2, Lancers Road
Timarpur, Delhi-110054.                             Petitioner

(By Advocate : Shri  A K Mishra for Shri Amit Kumar)

versus

1.	Sanjay Singh
The Secretary, Government of India
Ministry of Law and Justice
Legislative Department, Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi-110001.

2.	B M Sharma 
The Deputy Secretary (Admn. LD-I)
Ministry of Law & Justice
Legislative Department Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi.                                             .Respondents

(By Advocate: Shri Rajesh Katyal)

ORDER (ORAL)

G. George Paracken, Member(J) This contempt petition has been filed for the alleged non implementation of the order of this Tribunal dated 28.10.2014 in OA No.316/2013. The operative part of the said Order reads as under:-

16. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we allow this OA. Consequently, we quash and set aside the Annexure A-1 Impugned Order dated 12.12.2012 and the Annexure A-2 Impugned Seniority List of Copy Holder as on 01.04.2012. We also direct the Respondents No.1 and 2 to revise the seniority list by fixing the seniority of the Applicant over and above Private Respondents in terms of DOP&T OM dated 17.03.2001 and the judgment of the Apex Court in SI Roop Lal and Others (supra). The aforesaid directions shall be complied with, within a perioid of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
17. There shall be no order as to costs.

2. According to the petitioner herself, the respondents have revised the seniority list and placed him over and above the private respondents. However, they have not given promotion on the basis of his revised position in the seniority list.

3. The respondents have also filed compliance affidavit stating that his seniority has been revised.

4. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. We are satisfied that the aforesaid Order of this Tribunal has been fully complied with by the respondents. As regards the petitioners promotion based on his revised position in seniority list is concerned, he may make appropriate representation to the respondents and pursue the matter further in accordance with the rules, if so desired.

5. In view of the above position, this petition is closed. Notices issued to the alleged contemnors are discharged. No costs.

(Shekhar Agarwal)                      (G. George Paracken)	                                                                                                              
     Member (A)                                     Member (J)
   
/vb/