AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
9 paragraphs · 283 wordsAkhil Kumar Srivastava, Member J
Heard.
This Original Application has been filed the applicant against the inaction on behalf of the respondents whereby representation has not been decided.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is working as Assistant Station Master and his seniority at the time of promotion in the pay scale of Rs.5500-9000 has been fixed below his juniors. No reasons has been given by the respondents for lowering his seniority which consequently effecting his pay. The applicant has submitted detailed representations dated 04.03.2020 and 10.08.2020 to the respondents but the same are still pending.
At this stage, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant will be satisfied if the respondents are directed to decide his representations dated 04.03.2020 and 10.08.2020 in a time bound manner.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the Original Application is disposed of as per law in above manner.
This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that natural justice will be met if the competent authority of the respondents is directed to decide applicant’s representations dated 04.03.2020 and 10.08.2020 in a time bound manner.
Resultantly, this Original Application is disposed of at admission stage, without commenting on the merits of the case, directing the competent authority of respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representations dated 04.03.2020 and 10.08.2020, as per rules, if not already decided, within a period of 90 days after receiving the copy of this order.
Needless to say that the respondents shall pass the reasoned and speaking order. Respondents shall also deal with all the contentions raised in the representations.
