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
7 paragraphs · 247 wordsR. N. Singh, Member (J)
The applicant herein was working as a Head Constable 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, 1980. The applicant preferred the representation dated 25.02.2020, which has not been decided as yet. Feeling aggrieved the applicant has preferred the instant OA.
The applicant bring out that one case of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, Inspector, who was also retired, has made a representation and he had been reinstated vide orders dated 19.02.2020 by the said Committee which considers such representations. Applicant brings out that his case has not been considered.
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 is issued to the respondents to decide the representation dated 25.02.2020 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 certified copy of this order, under advice to the applicant.
No costs.