Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shashank Saraswat vs Central Board Of Excise And Customs on 8 May, 2012
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
OA 1515/2012
MA 1268/2012
Dated this Tuesday the 8th day of May, 2012.
Honble Mr.M.L.Chauhan, Member (J)
Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A)
1. Shashank Saraswat
S/o Shri R.K.Sarashwat,
R/o Opp. Tube Well Colony,
Bargad Wali Gali,
Budaun,
U.P. 243601
2. Namit Kishore Chaturvedi,
S/o Hari Kishore Chaturvedi,
R/o Post Araria R.S.,
Bihar 854312
3. Nitin Kumar Singh,
S/o Shri Jai Kumar Singh,
R/o 1438 First Floor Sector-3,
Vasundhara Gaziabad,
U.P.-201012 Applicants
(By Advocate: Sh.Pranav Sapra with Sh.Ankit Sharma)
Versus
1. Central Board of Excise and Customs
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
Govt. of India, 9th Floor,
Hudco Vishala Building,
Bikaji Cama Place
New Delhi 110066
2. Union of India
Through Secretary(Revenue)
Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi. . Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
By Sh. M.L. Chauhan The applicants have filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:-
(a) The applicants pray that the respondent be directed to reallocate the applicants in accordance to their respective first preferences,
(b) Any other relief this Honble Tribunal deems fit and proper. 2 Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have made representation to the respondents regarding re-allocation of zone of Inspector (Central Excise-) but the said representation has not been decided so far.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants further submits that in pursuance of the directions given by this Tribunal in OA No.2161/2011 decided on 3.6.2011 (Annexure A-2) and OA No.2219/2011 (with connected OA) decided on 5.7.2011 (Annexure A-3), the respondents have passed order regarding allocation of zone to the applicants therein but have erred in not allocating the zone to the applicants as per their preferences.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants will be satisfied at this stage if the similar directions are given to the respondents. According respondents are directed to decide the aforesaid representation of the applicants by treating this OA as a supplementary representation on behalf of the applicants and communicate their decision to the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further clarified that we have not gone into the merits of the matter and the OA is being disposed of on the basis of the submissions made by the applicants.
5. The OA shall stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M.L.Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) uma