Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sat Pal Singh Bukal vs M/O Defence on 13 July, 2018
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO.060/00802/2018 Decided on: 13.07.2018
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J) &
HON'BLE MS. AJANTA DAYALAN, MEMBER (A)
Sat Pal Singh Bukal, 60 years,
son of Shri Chhajju Ram,
resident of House Nos. 1208, Sector 35-B,
Chandigarh, Pincode-160035, Group B.
Applicant
By: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate.
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary,
To Govt. of India,
Ministry of Defence,
104,South Block, New Delhi, Pincode-110001.
2. Controller General Defence Accounts,
Ulan Batar Road, Palam,
Delhi Cantt, Pin Code-110010.
3. Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (BR), Seema Sadak
Bhawan, Ring Road, Delhi Cantt, Pin Code-110010.
4. Joint Controller of Defence Accounts, Sector 48, GREF Complex,
Chandigarh, Pin Code-110047.
... Respondents
By : None.
(OA.No. 060/00802/2018-
Sat Pal Singh Bukal Vs. UOI etc.)
2
O R D E R (oral)
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
1. The applicant seeks issuance of direction to the respondents to grant him 2nd ACP in view of the ACP Scheme dated 9.8.1999 (Annexure A-1), after completion of 24 years of service.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the claim, as raised by the applicant, has already been set at rest in CWP No.33946 of 2014 titled UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS VS. S . RANJIT SAMUEL, decided on 14.2.2017 (Annexure A-8), by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. He argues that when earlier, the applicant had raised his claim with the respondents in 2014, he was informed that same cannot be granted to him, as the case was pending consideration before the Hon'ble Madras High Court, at that point of time. However, since the awaited decision has come, there is no earthily reason with the respondents to deny consideration of claim of the applicant for grant of indicated benefit.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant has already submitted a representation dated 9.10.2017 (Annexure A-6), which was recommended vide letter dated 9.1.2018 (Annexure A-7) but no decision has been taken thereon. He submits that he would be satisfied if the O.A is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take a view in the matter within a fixed time framed.
4. In view of the limited prayer of the applicant and the fact that the respondents are yet to take a view in the matter, this O.A.is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the applicant as projected in representation, Annexure A-6 in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court, Annexure A-8, and take a view thereon within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the this order. In case, the applicant is found entitled (OA.No. 060/00802/2018- Sat Pal Singh Bukal Vs. UOI etc.) 3 to, the due benefits be released to him, else a speaking and reasoned order be passed on his claim, and same be also communicated to him. Needless to mention here that the disposal of this O.A. may not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (AJANTA DAYALAN) MEMBER (A) Place : Chandigarh.
Dated: 13.07.2018
HC*
(OA.No. 060/00802/2018-
Sat Pal Singh Bukal Vs. UOI etc.)