w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Shri B.Chandrasekhar & Another v/s The Director, National Aerospace Laboratories, Kodihalli, Airport Road, Bangalore & Others

Company & Directors' Information:- N-AEROSPACE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63033OR2016PTC020079

Company & Directors' Information:- D AEROSPACE PRIVATE LTD [Active] CIN = U74899DL1979PTC010128


    Decided On, 22 January 2007

    At, Central Administrative Tribunal Bangalore Bench


    For the Appearing Parties: Mr B.Veerabhadra, Advocate, Mr M.Vasudeva Rao, Senior Panel Counsel.

Judgment Text


1. Applicants two in number working as Officiating Assistant Grade-I under the first respondent, have filed this OA seeking the following reliefs:

?i) call for the relevant records leading to the issuance of the impugned office memorandum in No.5(51)/2004-A1 dated 22/12/2005 (ANNEXURES A-15 & A-16) and on perusal,

ii) direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants (taking into account of the length of service) for further promotion to the cadre of Assistant (General) Grade-I in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 and grant all consequential benefits while declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the applicants but in promoting the Respondents 5 & 6 who are juniors to the applicants as Assistant (General) Grade I vide office memorandum in No.7(1)/2005/A1 dated 21/6/2005 (ANNEXURE A-13) so far it relates to the 5th and 6th respondents, as arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore void and also quash and set aside the impugned office memorandum in No.5(51)/2004-A1 dated 22/12/2005 (ANNEXURES A-15 & A-16) respectively and

iii) pass any other order or direction or any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Tribunal, in the interest of justice, equity and fairplay in administration.?

2. The respondents have filed their reply and the applicants have filed their rejoinder also.

3. When the matter came up for hearing Mr B.Veerabhadra, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the first applicant is no more. Mr M.V.Rao, learned counsel for the respondents 1-4 has filed a memo stating that the first applicant had died on 10.08.2006. Mr B.Veerbhadra submitted that though he had requested the legal representatives of the first applicant through the second applicant for joining this application there is no response from them. In the circumstances, we need to consider only the case of the second applicant. After hearing the counsel for the parties we are of the view that the applicants have not set out their case in their representation before the respondents. In other words the case put forward by the applicants in this OA is different and therefore the respondents could not consider the case as projected in the OA . In that view of the matter we have pointed out to the counsel for the parties that the appropriate course for the applicant is to bring all the relevant facts which have been stated in the OA, before the respondents in a proper representation to enable them to consider the said case, the parties have no objection to the said course. However, we are of the view that instead of directing the second applicant to make a representation containing the averments made in the present OA, a direction can be issued to the respondents to treat this OA and the rejoinder as a representation made by the second applicant and to dispose of the same in accordance with law by a speaking order. Accordingly there will be a direction to the first respondent to treat this OA and the rejoinder as a representation and to dispose of the same in accordance

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

with law in so far as it relates to the second applicant by a speaking order within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not considered the merits of the rival contentions in this OA. 4. OA is disposed of as above. In the circumstances there will be no order as to cost.