Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sh. Ajay Kumar vs Union Of India Through on 22 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.3179 of 2010 M.A. No.2738 of 2010 New Delhi this the 22nd day of March, 2011 HONBLE DR. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA, MEMBER (J) 1. Sh. Ajay Kumar, s/o Sh. Kishan Lal, R/o 16/301, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi-110062. 2. Sh. Ravi Kumar s/o Sh. Mantoori, 3. Sh. Kanwar Pal S/o sh. Hazari Lal, 4. Sh. Ram Kishan. S/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, 5. Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Barphy Ram, 6. Sh. Gopal Singh Bisht S/o Sh. Shyam Singh Bisht 7. Sh. Dev Dutt S/o Late Sh. Tikaram, 8. Shri Brajesh Kumar S/o Shri Hari Chand Sharma, 9. Sh. Dharambir Singh S/o Sh. Bindvashani Singh, C/o All at R/o 16/301, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi-110062. Applicant (By Advocate : Shri Sunil Mund) versus 1. Union of India Through Director General Coast Guard National Stadium Complex, New Delhi. 2. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi. ..Respondents. (By Advocate : Shri Hilal Haidar) ORDER (ORAL)
This joint Application has been filed by nine applicants seeking directions inter alia to the respondents to regularise them in Group D post as per the orders of this Tribunal dated 28.10.2005 passed in OA 1613/2005 in the matter of Lawrence and others vs. Union of India to which the applicants herein were also parties. The said OA was disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the applicants for grant of temporary status with all consequential benefits having regard to the number of days for which the applicants had worked in two consecutive years in terms of the DOP&Ts guidelines issued in 1984 and 1988 on the subject. Since the relief sought herein by the applicants have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal earlier in the aforesaid OA No.1613/2005 decided on 28.10.2005 and the relief is being sought as per the order of this Tribunal in OA 1613/2005, the remedy of the applicants lies in seeking execution of the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 28.10.2008 in stead of filing the present Application afresh.
2. The applicants counsel submits that the applicants have been making strenuous efforts in the matter and pursuing it with the respondents but of no avail. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that the cases of the applicants have indeed been considered and they have orally been informed of the result thereof. However, the admitted position of both sides is that no written communication has been made by the respondents in the matter.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is considered expedient to dispose of this Application by issuing directions to the respondents to inform the applicants in writing the result of their consideration of the cases of the applicants for grant of temporary status in compliance of the directions contained in this Tribunals order dated 28.10.2005 passed in OA 1613/2005 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, whereupon the applicants shall be at liberty to seek redressal of their further grievance, if any, in accordance with law.
4. The Application is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(Dr. DHARAM PAUL SHARMA) MEMBER (J) /ravi/