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
15 paragraphs · 271 wordsR. N. Singh, Member (J)
The present OA has been filed by the applicant against the order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure A-1) vide which the applicant has been retired under
the provisions of the Rule-56 of Fundamental Rules and Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. Aggrieved of the aforesaid impugned order the
applicant is stated to have preferred representation dated 24.02.2020, however the same is still lying pending consideration by the respondents.
Heard. Issue notice. Shri Saksham Ahuja, proxy counsel appears for Ms Esha Mazumdar, learned counsel for respondents, on advance service,
accepts notice.
At this stage, Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant shall be satisfied, if the present OA is disposed of
with direction to the respondents to consider the aforesaid pending representation and to dispose of the same by passing an appropriate reasoned and
speaking order in a time bound manner.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the considered view that 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 merits of the claim of the applicant, the present OA is disposed of with direction to the respondents
to consider the applicant’s aforesaid representation and to dispose of the same by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order as
expeditiously as possible and in any case within 8 weeks of receipt of a copy of this Order.
The OA is disposed of with aforesaid directions. No costs.