Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Anshita Agnihotri vs Union Of India on 5 July, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI O.A. NO.2219/2011 M.A. 1617/2011 with O.A. NO.2220/2011 M.A. 1618/2011 New Delhi, this the 5th Day of July, 2011 CORAM: HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) OA 2219/2011: 1. Anshita Agnihotri, W/o Dhiraj Agnihotri, R/o 14/304, Shalimar Garden, Ext-I, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, U.P. 2. Deepak Sharma, S/o Shri S.K. Sharma, R/o A-9, Rajpark, S.P. Road, (Jai Kishen Wali Gali), Nangloi, Delhi 3. Mukesh, S/o Shri Raj Singh, R/o Village Babil, The. & Distt. Panipat, Haryana 132 103 .Applicants (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, 9th Floor, HUDCO Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066 3. Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi 4. Staff Selection Commission (SSC), C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi Respondents O.A. 2220/2011: 1. Amit Kumar, S/o Ashok Kumar, R/o Village Mahendwara, Post-Ghamroj, Distt: Gurgaon, Haryana 122 102 2. Vijay6 Kumar Sharma, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma, R/o Village Salempur, Gurjar, Distt: Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. 3. Adish Jain, S/o Shri Sudarshan Kumar Jina, R/o 1695/122, Shanti Nagar, Tri Nagar, Delhi 110 035 4. Shashank Saraswat, S/o Shri R.K. Saraswat, R/o Opp. Tube Well Colony, Bargad Wali Gali, Budaun, U.P. 243 601 5. Rachit Saxena, S/o Late Shri Pradeep Kumar Saxena, R/o C-115, Indu Puram Colony, Near Township, Aurangabad, Mathura, Uttar Pradesh 281 006 6. K.M. Bhardwaj, R/o 403, Vaisnodevi Township, Bh. B.R. Park Society, Rander Road, Vankala, Jahangirpuri Surant, .Applicants (By Advocate: Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Secretary (Revenue), Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi 2. Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, 9th Floor, HUDCO Vishala Building, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi 110 066 3. Department of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi 4. Staff Selection Commission (SSC), C.G.O. Complex, New Delhi Respondents O R D E R
By Dr. Veena Chhotray:
As both these cases are identical in nature, they are being dealt with by this common Order. We have heard Learned Counsel Shri M.K. Bhardwaj representing the applicants in both the OAs. Having considered the submissions, we do not find it necessary to issue notices to the respondents, hence these OAs are being disposed in limine.
2. In OA 2219/2011, there are three applicants and in OA 2220/2011 there are six applicants. All of them had been appointed to the Post of Central Excise Inspectors on the basis of the 2006-Examination fructifying in their appointments in the year 2009-10. Through these OAs, the applicants are agitating claims for allocation of zones as per their choice on the basis of their merits in the Select List. In support, the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA 4415/2010 disposed by the order dated 3.1.2011 has been cited (Annexure A-7). The learned counsel would also submit that in pursuance of these directions, all the four applicants in that OA had been re-allocated the zones of their preference vide the respondents letter dated 27.5.2011 (Annexure A/1). In addition another decision of a Coordinate Bench in OA 2161/2011 dated 3.6.2011 on similar lines has also been adverted to by the learned counsel.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel that representations had also been submitted by all the applicants to the Chairman, CBEC. The same had still not been considered by the respondents. It would further be submitted that the applicants would be satisfied if appropriate directions are given to the respondents to consider their representations, treating the present OAs as supplementary representations and pass speaking orders within a stipulated time frame.
4. We find merit in the submissions of the learned counsel. Accordingly these OAs are disposed with direction to the respondents no.1 and 2 to consider the representations of the applicants and also treat these OAs as supplementary representations and decide the same by passing reasoned and speaking orders within a period of one month from the date of issue of this order. While passing the order the respondents would also take into account their communication dated 27.5.2011 issued in the context of the OA 4415/2010.
5. With the above, the Misc. Applications filed in the OA also stand disposed.
Issue Dasti.
(DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY) (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
ap