CourtKutchehry.com
Tribunals and CommissionsSingle Bench(2019) 10 CAT CK 0029

Sushil Kumar Maurya vs Union Of India And Ors

Central Administrative Tribunal · Decided on 14 October 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Application No. 3344 Of 2019
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 364 words

Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

1.

This OA has been filed by the applicant along with the MA for condonation of delay in which the applicant has asked for the following reliefs:-

"a) To quash the impugned order dated 26.12.2017.

b) To direct the respondents to deem the applicant to be appointed from the date the vacancy arose and that the applicant shall be included and governed under the old pension scheme i.e. CCS(Pension) Rules, 1972.

c) To direct the respondents to collect the necessary subscription under the Provident Fund Rules and the contribution collected from the applicant under the NPS shall be credited to his General Provident Fund account.

d) Pass  such  and  other  orders  as  this  Hon‟ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2.

When the applicant was asked whether before filing of  this  OA,  he  has  exhausted  the  remedy  of  filing  a representation with regard to his claim, he informed that similarly placed persons as him had given a representation which was replied to by the Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, New Delhi vide their Order No.758-E/580/NPS-LPG/P-7 dated 25.12.2017 in which the following reply has been given:-

"In this connection, it is intimated that a petition before the Hon‟ble High Court of Kerala agaisnt the order of Hon‟ble CAT in OA No.20/2015 is still pending. However, we have simpathie3s for the appellant but in a society governed by the rule of law, sympathies cannot override the Rules and Regulations. The cut-off date is a domain of the employer and so the introduction of New Pension Scheme will be done considering all the relevant factors including financial viability of the same. Hence, their representations are declined and stands disposed off."

3.

As per the above order, this matter is already pending consideration of the respondents. Hence, without going into the merits of the case, we direct the respondents to pass a detailed and speaking order in this regard within 90 days of receipt of a copy of this order.

4.

With the above directions, the OA stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Hence, MA for condonation of delay is dismissed as infructuous.