AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 94 words
Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
1.
List has been revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the applicant. However, Shri Praveen Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
2.
As none has appeared on behalf of the applicant even in the revised call, the Court has no option, but to dismiss the original application for want of prosecution as per Rule 15(1) of Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. Accordingly, the O.A. No 1044/2012 stands dismissed for want of prosecution.
3.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
4.
All associated M.A.s stand disposed of.