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 · 268 wordsR. N. Singh, Member (J)
In the present OA the applicant has challenged the order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure A-1) vide which the applicant has been pre-maturely retired by the respondents by invoking the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (j) and Rule 48 (1) (a) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972.
Mr. Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned order, the applicant has preferred a representation dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure A-2). However, the same is lying pending consideration of the respondents even after lapse of around a year.
Issue notice. Shri Saksham Ahuja, learned counsel who appears for respondents on advance service, accepts notice.
At this stage, Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant shall be satisfied, if the present OA is disposed of, with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's aforesaid representation and to dispose of the same in a time bound manner.
We are of the considered view, if such request of the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted no prejudice is likely to be caused to the respondents.
In view of the aforesaid without going into the merit of the claim of the applicant the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's aforesaid representation (Annexure A-2) and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible and in any case within eight weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order. OA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.