Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mohd. Salim Ansari Son Of Mohd. Sakoor vs Union Of India on 29 July, 2009
OPEN COURT
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH ALLAHABAD
( THIS THE 29th DAY OF JULY, 2009 )
PRESENT :
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. YOG, MEMBER-J
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.23 of 2009
IN
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 410 OF 2009
(U/s, 19 Administrative Tribunal Act.1985)
Mohd. Salim Ansari Son of Mohd. Sakoor, Resident of 89, Tandon Road, Sipari Bazaar, City & District-Jhansi.
. . . . . . . .Applicant
By Advocate : Shri R.K. Shukla
Versus
1. Union of India, through its General Manger, North Central Railway, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Station Superintendent, Jhansi.
. . . . . . . . . Respondents
By Advocate : Shri P.N. Rai
O R D E R
(DELIVERED BY: JUSTICE A. K. YOG- MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings and the documents on record.
2. Precisely, this review petition is being filed on the ground that in final order dated 27.04.2009 deciding OA, this Bench inadvertently took into consideration-facts relating to Dhu Ram-and not the Applicant (Mohd. Salim Ansari) since said final order was a composite order, contention on the face of final order appears to be correct. This is a Mistake, on my part which constitute as ground for Review.
3. Order dated 27.4.2009 in OA No.410 of 2009 is hereby recalled. OA is restored to its original number and OA is being decided finally today itself (as agreed by the learned counsel for the parties).
OA
1. By means of the present OA No.410/09, the applicant (Mohd. Salim Ansari) seeks to challenge the order dated March 20, 2009 (Annexure A-1/Compilation I). Present applicant along with two other applicant (namely Dhooram and Madan Mohan) had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA No.379/04. Said OA was finally allowed vide order dated 16.12.2008. The case is remitted back to the respondents to consider and decide the requests of the applicants for regularization based on information furnished as per notification dated 31.8.2001 in accordance with law within a period of three months by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
2. In pursuance to the above order of the Tribunal, case of the applicant has been considered by means of the impugned order dated 20.03.2009 (Annexure A-1/compilation-I). Relevant para 2 of the impugned order categorically recites the fact that application submitted by Mohd. Salim Ansari/the applicant was not forwarded by the concerned authority (Depot. Incharge) and the facts mentioned in the application were not verified by concern depot. Incharge though specifically required under relevant notification. The application could not be entertained in absence of verification of facts.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant refers to the facts stated in para 4.11 of the OA which reads:-
That the applicant submitted his application and his particulars on 21.9.2001 through proper channel. The said application was received by the office of respondent no.3 and it appears that after due verification, same was sent to the respondent no.2. The photocopy of the aforesaid application where upon receiving is present. Copy of said application dated 21.9.2001 is being filed to 2nd compilation of original application as Annexure No. A-8.
4. Aforesaid para 4.11 has been sworn on the basis of personal knowledge irrespective of the fact that the same relates to respondents. Apart from the above, the applicant has submitted his application through concerned Depot. Incharge as required by the department.
5. Photocopy of the application of the applicant has been annexed as Annexure A-8/compilation-II. The said photocopy shows that somebody has placed his initials purporting to have been made on 21.09.2001 and the initial did not show full name and designation etc. There is no endorsement that it was submitted to concern Depot. Incharge and then forwarded to respondent no.3. There is no categorical averment in para 4.11 of the OA to the effect that application was submitted to concerned Depot. Incharge nor his name has been disclosed. It is also not categorically stated that application was forwarded and then on what date it was forwarded to concerned authority. Expression appears is presumptive and no reliance can be placed on such pleadings. The impugned order contains good grounds and cannot be said to be without reasons.
6. OA has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No Costs.
Member-J /ns/ ??
??
??
??
4