Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2018) 10 CAT CK 0044

Rajender Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 25 October 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Review Application No. 206 Of 2018 In Original Application No. 208 Of 2016

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 411 words
1.

This Review Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 22 (3) (f) of the AT Act, 1985 seeking review of the Tribunal's order dated 07.09.2018 passed in OA No. 208/2016.

2.

Matter has been reviewed. Applicant was appointed on compassionate ground. However, this process has taken more than three years time, before he was finally appointed. Applicant has brought out that during this time, he had not drawn any House Rent Allowance and in fact on the contrary, the department has debited house rent from his salary after he was appointed on compassionate ground.

3.

The applicant had also pleaded that there are certain decisions to the effect that the compassionate ground appointment cases are required to be considered and decided within a period of three years. In the instant case, however, it has taken more than three years.

4.

The applicant pleaded that in compassionate appointment cases, the quarter can also be regularised. In the instant case, respondents had processed for getting the quarter vacated, while his case was still under consideration. Now since, he has been appointed on compassionate ground, though belatedly, the respondents need to consider the same and also consider regularisation of the same quarter.

5.

While this may be so, the department had also processed for eviction of the quarter under Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (PPE Act) and have also passed an order of eviction on 23.12.2015. The remedy against this eviction order shall lie in a civil court of law and not with the Tribunal. It would have been a different matter, had there been no decision yet under PPE Act.

6.

In view of the foregoing, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to interfere in the case regarding regularisation of quarter in the aftermath of the judgment already being passed under PPE Act provisions. The applicant may seek his remedies elsewhere.

7.

The Tribunal, however, observes that it is open to the respondents to consider the instant case wherein compassionate ground appointment has actually been granted to the applicant, though belatedly, and this being so whether they would still like to proceed under the PPE Act. Towards this, the applicant may make a representation to the respondents within a period of two weeks and respondents shall pass a reasoned and speaking order on the same within a further period of four weeks.

6.

Decision passed in OA No.208/2016 on 07.09.2018 stands. Accordingly, RA is dismissed in circulation.