Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. Neelam Bhalla vs Union Of India And Ors on 17 July, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi RA 54/2014 in OA 4328/2010 Thursday, this the 17th Day of July, 2014 Honble Mr. G George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Dr. Neelam Bhalla D/o Shri S.P.S. Bhalla R/o Type 5, C-20, HUDCO Place Andrews Ganj, New Delhi. .Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra) VERSUS Union of India and Ors.
..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj) Order (Oral) Shri Sudhir Kumar, M(A):
Heard the counsel for the review applicant, Shri Ajesh Luthra. Ms. Priyanka Bhardwaj proxy counsel for Shri M.K. Bhardwaj has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out that as per order dated 28.05.2012, before the orders were reserved after hearing the full case, the counsel for the applicant had made a submission that he is not pressing relief (II) i.e. to direct the respondents to initiate and complete the process for recording of APAR for the year 2009-2010 in respect of applicant and thereafter to convene a review Peer Committee meeting and consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the rank of Scientists G in a time bound manner, in view of order passed by the respondents on 28.06.2011 and liberty may be given to the applicant to challenge the order as mentioned above in fresh proceedings. With leave and liberty as aforesaid, relief(ii) is dismissed as not pressed.
3. Learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that in spite of the relief at (II) not having been pressed, the Order passed by this Tribunal on 21.08.2012 has actually adverted to that relief in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 17, 23 and 42 and infact in para 23, specifically rejected the prayer.
4. It is seen that the order sheet dated 28.05.2012 was placed in part A file but it has not been placed in the part B file of the case which was utilized for the purpose of dictating the order pronounced, and, therefore, this inadvertent mistake has crept in. It is, therefore, clarified that wherever relief (II) is appearing in the Order dated 21.08.2012, it would not apply or read as a part of the aforesaid order because of the confusion due to the inadvertent mistake.
5. Registry is directed to be careful while placing the copies of all the order sheets in both the part A and B files in all cases so that such inadvertent mistakes never occur in future. With these observations RA is disposed of.
(Sudhir Kumar) (G. George Paracken ) Member(A) Member (J) /vb/