Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore

Umesh L Halkar vs Department Of Atomic Energy on 11 August, 2025

                                               1
                                                        O.A No./386/2025/CAT/BANGALORE




                               CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

                                BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU

                                       O.A NO.170/00386/2025

                                 Dated this the 11th day of August 2025

                    CORAM:

                    HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
                    HON'BLE DR. SANJIV KUMAR, MEMBER (A)


              Sri Sh. Umesh L Halkar,
              S/o Lingappa
              Aged about 65 years,
              Scientific Assistant-E
              (now retired),
              Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd.,
              Kaiga Plant Site.
              Kaiga,
              Karwar, PIN 581 400.
              Residing at No.119K(2),
              Site 4, Navachetan Retirement
              Township, Santigodu,
              Puttur, Dakshina Kannada,
              PIN 574 202,
              Karnataka.                                          ......Applicant

              (By Advocate: Shri.Yodh Singh- not present)

                         Vs.

              Represented by the Site Director
              Department of Atomic Energy,
              Nuclear Power Corporation
              India Limited (NPCIL) through
              Kaiga Generating Station,
              Kaiga Plant Site.


          SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
        CAT

Y VIJU 2025.08.18
       10:41:34+05'30'
                                                     2
                                                           O.A No./386/2025/CAT/BANGALORE


              Karwar,
              Karnataka-581400.                                      .....Respondent


                                                 O R D E R (ORAL)

                                 PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

The matter called twice. Even in the second round, there is no representation on behalf of the applicant.

2. Despite reasonable time was granted for compliance with the office objections, neither the office objections are cured nor there is any representation for the applicant. It appears that the applicant is not serious about prosecuting the Original Application. Accordingly, the Original Application stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

No order as to costs.

                                   Sd/-                               Sd/-
                         (DR. SANJIV KUMAR)                  (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
                              MEMBER (A)                          MEMBER (J)

                 /SV/




          SHAINEY VIJU
SHAINEBangalore
        CAT

Y VIJU 2025.08.18
       10:41:34+05'30'