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
6 paragraphs · 280 wordsA. Mukhopadhaya, Member (A)
At the outset, Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that this is a matter where the applicant has represented to the respondents on 29.06.2020 with a reminder again on 10.11.2020 for grant of MACP and consequent revision of his pension. Applicant's counsel further submitted that the representation dated 29.06.2020, (Annexure No. A-8), still remains to be responded to and stated that he would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the same after affording the applicant an opportunity of a personal hearing to better explain his case and thereafter decide the matter by way of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a reasonable timeframe.
At this, Ms. Prayagmati Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that if the representation in question is to be decided in the manner suggested, a period of at least three months would be necessary for the same.
Looking to the limited plea made by the learned counsel for the applicant, I deem it appropriate, without entering into the merits of the case, to dispose of this OA at the stage of admission itself with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation made to them by the applicant on 29.06.2020, (Annexure No. A-8), and after affording the applicant an opportunity of a personal hearing in order to better explain his case, decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Original Application is disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order on costs.