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 · 302 wordsA Mukhopadhaya, Member (A)
(Through Video Conferencing)
Heard both learned counsel for the applicant as well as for the respondents.
At the outset, Shri Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that the applicant, in this case, who has been getting family pension as per PPO dated 27.03.2014, earlier, has not been paid revised pension as provided for vide revised PPO dated 29.04.2019. She has also not been paid any pension between the dates of 02.11.2009 and December 2018. Shri Kumar submitted that the applicant, has already submitted a representation to the respondents in this regard dated 20th November, 2019, (Annexure-A-7), and stated that he would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to dispose of this representation after giving an opportunity of personal hearing so that the applicant can better explain her case, within a reasonable time frame.
At this, Ms. Prayagmati Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that in case the representation in question is to be decided in the manner suggested, a period of at least two months would be required for this purpose.
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 by directing the respondent No. 2, to consider the representation made by the applicant dated 20th November, 2019, (Annexure-A-7), and, after affording the applicant an opportunity of personal hearing in order to enable her to better explain her case, decide the same by way of a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two months of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
OA is disposed of accordingly.
There will be no order on costs.