CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsDivision Bench(2018) 07 CAT CK 0096

Sudhir Kumar vs Chairman, Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 16 July 2018

HON’BLE JUDGES
V. Ajay Kumar, J · Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Original Application No. 2137 Of 2018, Miscellaneous Application No. 2638 Of 2018
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 337 words

V. Ajay Kumar, J

1.

The applicant, an Assistant Director under the respondents, filed the OA seeking the following reliefs:-

" 8.1 May quash and set aside the impugned executive orders dated 19.03.2015 and 02.05.2016 being contrary to each other and in contradiction to Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 ; and

8.2 May pass such other further orders/directions deem fit and proper in the facts of the case in favour of the applicant".

2.

Heard Ms. Jasvinder Kaur with Shri Soumya Swaroop, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri S.M. Zulfiqar Alam with Ms. Ranny, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the pleadings on record.

3.

The applicant sought for quashing of the Annexure A-1 Order dated 19.03.2015 and Annexure A-2 Order dated 02.05.2016 on various grounds. Both the Annexure A-1 order dated 19.03.2015 and Annexure A-2 Order dated 02.05.2016 are general in nature and neither addressed to the applicant nor communicated to the applicant. The applicant has not even sought for any consequential relief for himself, in the event of quashing the said orders. Therefore, the reliefs claimed by the applicant are in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. As per the settled principles of law, no OA is maintainable without seeking any relief for himself by the applicant.

4.

Though the applicant sought for a direction as an interim prayer to allow preparatory leave to her, during the pendency of her voluntary retirement application, but failed to show any specific rule which provides for preparatory leave before accepting voluntary retirement request. Moreover, as per the Notification dated 05.07.2018, copy of which is produced by the applicant's counsel, it is revealed that the competent authority has already accepted the request for voluntary retirement of the applicant with effect from 12.07.2018. Hence, the prayer for granting preparatory leave and also the OA becomes infructous.

5.

In the circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the OA and accordingly the same is dismissed. Pending MA also stands dismissed. No costs.