Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mohammad Parvez Khan vs Union Of India Through on 27 February, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
OA 2129/2012
This the 27th day of February, 2014
Honble Mr. V.Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. P.K.Basu, Member (A)
Mohammad Parvez Khan
S/o Mohd Suleman,
Aged 39 years,
Junior Engineer (Civil)
R/o Type 3, Quarter No.84,
Boloria Parisar, CPWD Colony,
Navlakha,Indore 452001 (MP) . Applicant
(By Advocate:None)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Urban Development,
C-Wing, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 011.
2. Director General (Works) & PIO
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi 110 011.
3. Additional Director General
(Training), CPWD, E Wing,
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
4. Sudhir Kumar Udiya, AE
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
5. Ms. Sandhya Nateshan, AE
Through Director General (Works) & PIO
CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
6. Shri Rajesh Kumar, AE,
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan,
New Delhi -110 011.
7. Shri Ajmer Singh, AE
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
8. Shri Jai Prakash Sinha, AE
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
9. Shri Valsan Paloran, AE
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
10. Shri S. Jayaraman, AE
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011.
11. Shri Sant Kumar Choudhary, AE
Through Director General (Works) &
PIO, CPWD, Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi 110 011 . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri D.S.Mahendru)
ORDER (ORAL)
By Honble Mr.V.Ajay Kumar, Since this is a transferred matter from the Jabalpur Bench and as there was no representation on behalf of applicant, by order dated 25.11.2013, official respondents were directed to serve fresh notice to the applicant. In pursuance of the said order, fresh notice was issued to the applicant and the respondents filed proof of service. Despite the same, there was no representation on behalf of the applicant on 28.01.2014. Even today, none present on behalf of the applicant.
In the circumstances, the OA is dismissed for non-prosecution.
No order as to costs.
(P.K.Basu) (V.Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) uma