Bachhu Singh vs Govt. Of NCTD & Others

R. N. Singh, Member (J)

The applicant herein was appointed as a Constable on 20.5.1988 under the respondents. Vide orders passed by the disciplinary authority on 18.12.2019, the applicant has been retired under Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The applicant preferred a representation also dated 31.12.2019, which has also not been decided as yet.

Feeling aggrieved at this retirement, the applicant has preferred the instant OA. Directions have been sought for quashing this order Dt. 18.12.2019 and for deciding his pending representation. No IR has been sought.

The applicant brings out that one Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Inspector, who was also retired in a similar manner, had made a representation and he had since been reinstated vide orders dated 19.02.2020 by the said Committee which considers such representations.

Applicant brings out that his representation has not been decided yet, even though the said committee meeting is supposed to have been held.

Heard. Issue notice to the respondents. Ms. Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondents on receipt of advance information.

At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he will be satisfied, if certain time bound direction can be issued to the respondents to decide the pending representation dated 31.12.2019, by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Matter has been heard at length. In view of the foregoing, the OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the pending representation within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, under advice to the applicant.

No costs.