SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

V.K.JAIN
Sub-Division Engineer (L &B), Telecom Distt. B. S. N. L. – Appellant
Versus
M. Sambasiva Rao – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Nemo
For the Respondent: Nemo

ORDER (ORAL)

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—No one is present for the respondent despite service. On last date of hearing also no one was present either for the petitioner or for the respondent despite service of notice on the petitioners. The advocate who was representing the petitioners has expired and intimation in this regard was given to this Commission by a counsel on the last date of hearing. In these circumstances, when no one is appearing either for the petitioners or for the respondent despite service of notice on them, I proceed to decide the revision petition on its merits.

2. The petitioners allegedly allotted a staff quarter to the complainant on out of turn basis and the said quarter was occupied by him on 18-02-2005. The license fee for the aforesaid quarter was to be deducted from the salary of the complainant. On 22-02-2005 the servant quarter was allegedly locked by the petitioners on the ground that the allotment made to the complainant had been cancelled. Being aggrieved the complainant approached the concerned District Forum seeking the following reliefs:

(a) to handover the keys and redeliver the possession of the staff quarter bearing No.B-2, Type-II to the compl














Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top