Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Anjali Mittal vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And ... on 1 December, 2020
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Original Application No. 060/00931/2020
Date of Order: This, the 1st day of December, 2020
THE HON'BLE SMT. MANJULA DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Anjali Mittal, aged 36 years,
W/O Sh.Lalit Kumar Agarwal, Inspector,
CGST Division MandiGobindgarh,
Permanent Resident of House No.3559,
First Floor, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh
... Applicant
- Versus -
1.Union ofIndia,
Through Secretary to Government
Of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block,
New Delhi
2. Secretary to Government of India,
Ministry of Personnel,
Grievances and Pensions,
Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block, New Delhi-110001
3. Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs through its Chairman,
BhaiVir SinghSadan,,
OA.60/931/2020
2
BhaiVir Singh Marg,
New Delhi-110001
4. Chief Commissioner,
Central Goods & Service Tax,
Chandigarh Zone,
Central Revenue Building
Plot No.19, Sector 17-C,
Chandigarh-160017
.........Respondents.
For the Applicants: Sri R K Sharma
For the Respondents: Sri Sanjay Goel, Sr.C.G.S.C.
O R D E R (ORAL)
MANJULA DAS, MEMBER (J):
This matter has been taken up through video conferencing.
2. By this O.A., filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the applicant is making following prayers:-
OA.60/931/2020 3 "8.I) Issue directions to the respondents to consider claim of the applicant for restoration of seniority in the cadre of Inspector, Central Excise,now CGST in Chandigarh zone, in terms of circularNo.36012/72/2009-Estt.(Res.) dated 4th June, 2010 issued by Respondent No.2 in pursuance of directions of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A.No.3494/2009 decided on 03.12.2009, with all the consequential benefits.
II) Grant any other relief to which she is found entitled to in law and equity.
III) Respondents may be directed to produce complete record of the case for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Tribunal.
IV) Cost of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant."
3. Sri R K Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant submitted that applicant appeared in the Combined Graduate Level Examination 2006 conducted by SSC and had secured SLD/496 rank. Applicant had given option for allocation of zone preference wise Chandigarh, Delhi, Jaipur, Bhopal and Vadodara. According to the OA.60/931/2020 4 learned counsel, applicant's grievance arose when she was allocated Vadodara which was her fifth preference.
4. Learned counsel drew my attention to the OM dated 04.06.2020 issued by DoPT on the subject Allocation of Zones to Inspectors (Central Excise)- Implementation of the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the matter of ShriSurender Singh vs. Union of India & Others (OA.3494/2009) and submitted that on the basis of said OM, many candidates had been re-allocated to their preferred zones without losing their seniority. Applicant did make representation before the authority dated 17.02.2020 with a request to allocate herChandigarh zone which was her 1st preference against general category seats. It was submitted by the learned counsel that said representation is still pending and has not yet been OA.60/931/2020 5 disposed of. Learned counsel submitted that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondents - competent authority to consider and dispose of the same in the light of OM dated 04.06.2020 within a time frame.
5. Sri Sanjay Goel, learned Sr. C.G.S.C. appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that respondents would have no objection in directing for consideration of the pending representation.
6. By accepting the prayer made by the learned counsel and not objected by the learned counsel for the respondents and without expressing anything on merits, I direct the respondents - the competent authority to consider and dispose of the pending representation dated 17.02.2020 in the light of OM dated 04.06.2020, as mentioned above, by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a OA.60/931/2020 6 period of three months from the date of receipt of this order. The decision to be taken by the competent authority on the said representation shall be communicated to the applicant forthwith.
7. The OA is disposed of as above at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
(MANJULA DAS) JUDICAIL MEMBER /BB/ OA.60/931/2020