Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ramesh Raj Gupta vs Union Of India & Others. on 13 May, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH MA NO.229/2009 In M.A.No.1367/2008 O.A.No.2515/2001 New Delhi, this the 13th day of May, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE M. RAMACHANDRAN, VICE-CHAIRMAN (J) HONBLE SHRI SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A) Ramesh Raj Gupta Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Manjit Singh Reen) Versus Union of India & Others. Respondents (By Advocate: Shri A.S.Dateer) ORDER By Shailendra Pandey, Member (A):
M.A.No.229/2009 has been filed by the applicant for recalling of the order dated 24.10.2008, which was passed in MA No.1367/2008 in OA No.2515/2001.
2. In the said MA, the applicant has stated that the Honble High Court of Delhi vide its Judgment dated 27.04.2005 in CWP No.7742/2002 had modified/set aside the Tribunals order dated 31.10.2002 vide which liberty was also granted to the respondents to conduct further inquiry, and that it had further held that the applicant would be entitled to the consequential benefits arising out of the order of the Tribunal and the order of the Court in accordance with law. Therefore, it is the contention of the applicant that he is deemed to be in continuous service since the year 1961 till the year 2002, i.e., the date of his superannuation. The applicant states that he made several representations to the Respondents for grant of the benefits in terms of the aforesaid High Courts Judgement but the same was not given and he was thus constrained to file Contempt Petition No.17/2008 in OA No.2515/2001 for refusal on the part of the respondents to grant the consequential benefits. In the Contempt Petition, this Tribunal vide its order dated 19.03.2008 had directed the respondents to finalize the retiral benefits and all other consequential benefits within two months and also to pass a speaking order in this regard. The respondents passed the speaking order on 15.07.2008. Thereafter, MA No.1367/2008 was filed by the applicant on 07.08.2008 alleging willful disobedience of Tribunals order dated 19.03.2008 passed in CP No.17/2008, but the same was rejected by this Tribunal on 24.10.2008 on the statement made [in the absence of the applicants counsel] by the respondents counsel that the orders have been fully complied with and the MA No.1367/2008 is not sustainable in law. Thereafter, the applicant filed another MA No.1998/2008 on 25.11.2008 for taking action against the respondents in making the false averments in the Court on 24.10.2008 in MA No.1367/2008, but the same was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Tribunal on 16.12.2008 giving liberty as asked by the applicants counsel to seek review of the order dated 24.10.2008. Hence, the present MA has been filed on 27.01.2009 seeking recalling of the order dated 24.10.2008 passed in MA No.1367/2008.
3. On a notice issued by this Tribunal on 13.04.2009 in the present MA, the respondents have filed their reply stating that the order of the Tribunal was fully complied with and that the MA be dismissed, and that the applicant is in the habit of filing baseless applications and is a chronic litigant.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties on MA 229/2009 and have been through the pleadings on record. We find that as per the directions passed in the CP No.17/2008, the respondents had passed a speaking order on 15.07.2008. If the applicant feels aggrieved by the said order, the proper remedy is to file a detailed representation to the respondents detailing the reasons for his being aggrieved which can be disposed of as per rules by the respondents. Therefore, we see no reason to recall the order passed on 24.10.2008 in MA NO.1367/2008. Accordingly, MA is disposed of with a direction to the applicant, if so advised, to file a representation to the respondents within two weeks from today giving details of retiral benefits admissible to him as per rules which still remain to be paid, which can be disposed of by the respondents by passing a detailed speaking order on the representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation from the applicant. No costs.
(Shailendra Pandey) (M.Ramachandran)
Member (A) Vice-Chairman (J)
/nsnrsp/