Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Rahul Srivastava And Anothers vs Union Of India on 11 February, 2022
CAT, Lucknow Bench- OA No. 261-2019- Rahul Srivastava an ors v. UoI & Ors.
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH
Original Application No. 332/00261/2019
Date of Order: This, the 11th day of February, 2022
HON'BLE MR. DEVENDRA CHAUDHRY, MEMBER (A)
1. Rahul Srivastava, aged about 40 years, son of Shri Om
Prakash Srivastava, Resident of- 610/569, Keshav
Nagar, Lucknow.
2. Yagesh Kumar Srivastava, aged about 44 years, son of
Shri Ishwar Saran Srivastava, Resident of- Ahibaranpur,
Lucknow.
..Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The General Manager, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.
3. The Director (Estt.), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New
Delhi.
4. Shri Pradyumn Kumar Tiwari (P.K. Tiwari), posted as
Law Officer, Group B, Department of Rail Coach Factory,
Kapurthala under the respondent no. 2 i.e. General
Manager, Rail Coach Factory, Kapurthala.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Sharad Chandra Shukla/Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
O R D E R (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Devendra Chaudhry, Member (A) Learned counsel for the applicants submits at the outset that vide order dated 07.01.2022 it had been directed that the representation of the applicants may be decided pending the OA, it is now representation has been decided and relief granted. Accordingly, OA has become infructuous.
Page 1 of 2CAT, Lucknow Bench- OA No. 261-2019- Rahul Srivastava an ors v. UoI & Ors.
2. To this, learned respondent counsel whose vakalatnama has filed in the matter Shri S.C. Shukla submits that the version of the ld. applicant counsel is agreed to and the OA may be dismissed as it become infructuous.
3. Learned standing counsel Ms. Prayagmati Gupta intervenes and submits that Shri S.C. Shukla has no authority to argue in the matter because as per the OM dated 01.02.2022 of the Department of Legal Affairs and the circular dated 08.02.2022 of the Railway Board, now there is no counsel separately for the railways and the government counsels notified by the Department of Legal Affairs who would be the counsels in the matter of Railways. To this, Shri S.C. Shukla, ld. respondent counsel submits that he has no personal intimation w.r.t. the circular cited by the ld. respondent counsel Ms. Prayagmati Gupta.
4. Further, Ms Prayagmati Gupta, ld. counsel submits that she has no objection if the OA is dismissed as having become infructuous on ground of relief granted.
5. Given the facts, the version of the ld. counsels with respect to authority has been noted above. Since, the relief has been granted, therefore, the OA has become infructuous and dismissed as infructuous on ground of relief granted as prayed by applicant.
6. No costs.
(Devendra Chaudhry) Member (A) JNS Page 2 of 2