Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Puran Chand Son Of Late Shri Bakshi Ram vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 27 November, 2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.063/00148/2014
Chandigarh, this the 27th Day of November, 2014
CORAM: HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J).
HONBLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A).
Puran Chand son of Late Shri Bakshi Ram, age 65 years, resident of Village Rabon, Post Office Saproon, Solan.
APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Chief Post Master General, H.P. Circle, Shimla
3. Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Solan Division, Solan-173211.
RESPONDENTS
Present: Sh. D.R. Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
ORDER (ORAL)
HONBLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
1. The present O.A. has been filed seeking mainly the following relief:
8(ii). That the respondents be directed to grant the benefit of 3rd MACP to the applicant in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800+Grade Pay 4600/- w.e.f. 1.9.2008 (on completion of 30 years of service) alongwith all other consequential benefits like arrears of pay, arrears of revised pensionary benefits with interest @18% p.a.
(iii). That the applicant be extending the benefit of the judgment passed by this Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench and Principal Bench, High Court (A-1 to A-3) and clarification dated 18.10.2010 (A-9).
2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that case of the applicant is squarely covered by the decision of Principal Bench as well as Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal (Annexure A-1 to A-3), whereby MACP claim has been allowed to the similarly situated persons. He also stated that the applicant had submitted representation dated 06.12.2012 to the respondents annexing both the aforesaid judgments (Annexure A-7) and a reminder in this regard also was submitted on 02.7.2013 (Annexure A-8) but till date the same have not been decided.
3. In view of the prayer of the applicant and order we intend to pass, there is no need to issue notice to the respondents as the applicant is only seeking direction to decide his representation.
4. W0e are inclined to observe here that under Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the respondents are bound to take a decision on the representation of an aggrieved person like the applicant and communicate the decision by passing a reasoned order to him and not to force him to approach the Court of law by wasting his time and money, to find out the view of the respondents.
5. In view of the above, the present O.A. is disposed of with direction to Respondent No.2 to take a view on the pending representations dated 06.12.2012 and 02.07.2013 (A/7 and A/8) of the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. While taking a view they should consider the ratio laid down in the judgments relied upon by the applicant. Order so passed be duly communicated to the applicant. Needless to say that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
(UDAY KUMAR VARMA) (SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated: 27.11.2014.
KR
3
O.A No.063/00148/2014