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
4 paragraphs · 245 wordsK.V. Eapen, Member A
When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has not received instructions from his client. He submits that he has taken up it with the applicant, but since the applicant resides in Tamil Nadu, he has not received any instruction from the applicant till date. However, he has no objection for the O.A to be closed with permission to re-open the same in case there is any outstanding relief.
Counsel for the respondents again submits that the respondents have taken all necessary steps for revising the pension payment order and also for paying the difference in DCRG. Hence there is nothing left in this matter for further adjudication and the Original Application may be closed as all reliefs due are granted.
3 It appears from the examination of the documents provided that the matter can be closed on the above submission of the respondents as it is recorded in Annexure R-1 that the Casual Labour service of the applicant has been reckoned for the purposes of granting pensionary benefits and as the revised PPO in Annexure R-2 has also been issued by respondent no.2. The Original Application is accordingly closed as the respondents have submitted that they have taken necessary steps for granting all the reliefs as prayed for by the applicant. The applicant can approach the Tribunal appropriately in case he is still aggrieved. No order as to costs.