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
8 paragraphs · 156 wordsThe only relief that the petitioner has prayed for in the present petition is for issuing directions to the Central Administrative Tribunal to finally hear
and dispose of three O.As., i.e. O.A. No.252/2016, 532/2016 and 2739/2016.
We may note that vide order dated 15.11.2017, the Tribunal has adjourned all the three matters for hearing on 23.01.2018. A perusal of the order-
sheets before the Tribunal, filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner reveals that it is not as if counsel for the respondents has been seeking an
adjournment. It appears from the said order sheets that due to the heavy board of the Tribunal, the request for early hearing made by the counsel for
the petitioner was declined on 23.10.2017. We see no reason to interfere in the impugned order, as the three original applications have been listed on
23.1.2018 for hearing.
The present petition is disposed of alongwith the pending applications.