Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Pushpa Devi W/O Shri Sunil Kumar vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi Through The Chief ... on 25 January, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-270/2012
New Delhi this the 25th day of January, 2012.
Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J)
Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A)
Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Sunil Kumar
R/o H.No.272-A, Naharpur,
Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi-110085. . Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Shukla)
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Chief Secretary,
5th Floor, Delhi Sachivalaya,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
2. The Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi.
3. The Deputy Director of Education,
North West (B),
Zone FU Block, New Delhi. . Respondents
ORDER (Oral)
Sh. G. George Paracken, Member (J) The Applicant has filed this Original Application challenging the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents in not treating her at par with those TGTs, who were appointed in the year 2008 based on Advertisement No.6/2006 dated 30.12.2006. It is submitted by the Applicant that her result was not declared in view of the fact that she did not have requisite qualification but she approached this Tribunal earlier with the aforesaid grievance vide OA 1241/2008 and in terms of its direction dated 15.09.2008, she joined later on 11.02.2009. Thereafter, she made the annexure A-3 representation dated 11.11.2011 to the respondents to treat her at par with her colleagues, who have joined service in terms of aforesaid advertisement. However, they have not considered and disposed it of.
2. We have heard Shri R.K.Shukla, the learned counsel for the Applicant. In our considered view, this OA is pre-mature and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, it will be appreciated if the Respondents consider the aforesaid representation at the earliest, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order and take a decision on it and convey the same to the Applicant. They may also treat this OA as a supplementary representation on behalf of the Applicant, while taking the decision. If the applicant is still aggrieved with the aforesaid decision, she is at liberty to approach this Tribunal again through appropriate proceedings.
3. There is order as to costs.
(Dr.A.K.Mishra) (George Paracken) Member (A) Member (J) /kdr/