Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Lt. Col. Chandan Vatsa vs National Highway Authority Of India on 16 January, 2014

      

  

  

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH


O.A. No. 400/2012
M.A. No.2434/2012
M.A. No. 157/2014


New Delhi, this the 16th day of January, 2014


HONBLE MR. G. GEORGE PARACKEN, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR.  SHEKHAR AGARWAL, MEMBER (A)


Lt. Col. Chandan Vatsa,
S/o Shri B.P. Sinha,
R/o Flat No.16, Pocket 1,
Sector 6, Dwarka,
New Delhi-110075.
Presently posted at PIU, Bengusarai,
Bihar.								.. Applicant

(By Advocate: Shri Rajiv Kumar Jha)

Versus

1.	National Highway Authority of India 
	Through Chairman,
	HQ NHAI, G-5 & 6, Sector 10,
	Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

2.	Shri B.N. Singh,
	Member (Project),
	HQ NHAI, G-5 & 6, Sector 10,
	Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.

3.	Shri V.B. Singh,
	GM (Tech),
	D-63, Rajesh Kumar Path,
	South SK Puri, 
	Patna-800 001.

4.	Shri Rakesh Nagar,
	General Manager (HR/Admn)-I & PIO,
	HQ NHAI, G-5 & 6, Sector 10,
	Dwarka, New Delhi-110075.		   .. Respondents

(By Advocate : Shri Jose Chiramel with Shri Ajay Singh)

ORDER (ORAL)

Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) O.A. 400/2012 The Applicant has filed this O.A. seeking the following reliefs:

i) To declare the appointment of the respondent No.3 as GM (Tech) vide letter dated 23.04.2010 by Respondent No.1 as illegal and quash and set aside the said appointment; and To quash and set aside the order dated 23.02.2011 appointing respondent No.3 as RO Bihar and direct the respondents to appoint the senior most GM (Tech) in the Bihar area to be appointed as RO Bihar, till the permanent incumbent is posted as RO Bihar; and To quash and set aside order dated 13.03.2011 posting the applicant as SLO Ranchi and direct the respondent No.1 to allow the applicant to complete his remaining tenure at Bihar to allow the applicant to fulfil his social obligation towards his 100% immobile and bed-ridden father; and To quash and set aside the order dated 31.01.2012 passed by R-1 relieving the Applicant with effect from 01.02.2012 from compassionate posting, while at the same time calling him for interview on 02.02.2012 for redressal of grievance, clearly smacks of mala-fide intentions, pre-meditated plans and arbitrariness and To pass any further orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Respondents have filed their reply opposing the reliefs sought by the Applicant and the same is on record.

3. This M.A. has been filed by the Applicant during the pendency of the aforesaid O.A. seeking a direction to the Respondents to file all the documents referred to in their counter reply.

4. This M.A. has been filed by the applicant by way of an affidavit seeking permission of this Tribunal to withdraw the aforesaid O.A. for the following reasons:

2. That the Respondent No.2, Shri B.N. Singh, Member (P), who was then Member-in-Charge of the State of Bihar, stands replaced as another officer has been appointed as Member-in-Charge of the State of Bihar.

That the Respondent No.3, Shri V.B. Singh, G.M. (T) who was junior to the deponent has now been removed and an officer senior to deponent has been appointed as Regional Officer (Bihar).

That the Respondent No.4, Shri Rakesh Nagar, the then G.M. (HR & Admn.) has also been removed from the post and stands repatriated to his parent department w.e.f. 31st December, 2013.

That the post of SLOs including SLO Jharkhand, to which the applicant/deponent had been posted stands abolished with the creation of the office of RO, Jharkhand.

That in view of the above said development all the grievances made by the applicant/deponent in the original application have now been redressed, so no grievance services (sic. survives) against the respondents.

That the deponent has already communicated to the Chairman, N.H.A.I. regarding his decision to withdraw the case vide his representation dated 09.10.2013.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, Shri Jose Chiramal, submits that the aforesaid affidavit cannot be accepted, as the same is not an unconditional withdrawal.

6. We have considered the submissions made by the counsels for the parties. The reasons stated in the aforesaid affidavit are not uncontroverted. Therefore, we do not like to give any opinion on them. However, we have no objection to the request of the Applicant to withdraw the O.A. Accordingly, this M.A. is allowed and the aforesaid O.A. is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the interim order passed therein earlier also stands vacated.

7. In view of the above position, M.A. 2434/2012 has also become infructuous and it is disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.

(SHEKHAR AGARWAL)                 (G. GEORGE PARACKEN)                                                     
       MEMBER (A)                                     MEMBER (J)

/jyoti/