Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Atul Goyal vs M/O Finance on 9 August, 2016
1 Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A. No. 2671/2016 This is the 09th day of August, 2016 Hon'ble Shri Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Hon'ble Shri Raj Vir Sharma, Member(J) Atul Goyal, Inspector, Central Excise, Aged About 30 years, S/o Late Sh. Ram Babu Agarwal, R/o C-95, Preet Vihar, Delhi. ...Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. M.K. Bhardwaj) Versus
1. Union of India Through Secretary (Revenue) Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi.
2. Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) Department of Revenue Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, 9th Floor Hudco Vishala Building Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066
3. Department of Personnel and Training Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. ... Respondents Order (oral) Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) This OA has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
"i) To direct the respondents to allocate the Zone to the applicant as per his merit and by following the principal of merit-cum-preference and declare their act of allocating zones against the rules as illegal and unjustified and accordingly set aside such orders.2
ii) To declare the action of respondents in not allocating the Delhi zone to the applicant as illegal and issue appropriate directions to respondents to allocate Delhi zone to applicant consequent upon his selection and appointment as Central Excise Inspector on the basis of result of CGLE-2006.
Iii) To direct the respondents to extend the benefits of order dated 03.06.2011, 03.01.2011, 05.07.2011 & 03.01.2013 in OA No. 2161/2011, 4415/2010, 2219/2011 & 10/2013 to the applicant.
iv) To allow the OA with costs.
v) Any other relief's as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that this issue has been considered and decided by this Tribunal in several OAs in particular OA No. 2527/2014 (page 62 to 66 of the paper book). He has submitted that the applicant would be satisfied in case directions were given to the respondents to extend the benefits of the aforesaid judgment to him as well.
3. Accordingly, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself without going into the merits of the case and without issuing notice to the respondents with a direction to them to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the aforesaid judgment. In case the applicant is found to be covered by the aforesaid judgment, he shall be extended the same benefits as were granted to the applicant in the aforesaid OA. The respondents shall communicate their decision to the applicant within a period of 60 days by means of a reasoned and speaking order. No costs.
(Raj Vir Sharma) (Shekhar Agarwal)
Member J) Member (A)
/sarita/
3