Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 13912
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Anil Kumar Ojha, Judicial Member, Pankaj Kumar, Administrative Member
Prashnat Kumar Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Original Application No. 332/00677/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohd. Azhar Siddiqui
For the Respondents: Ms. Prayagmati Gupta
Tribunal directs decision on service regularization representations by speaking order within stipulated time.
Headnote:The applicants seek regularization of services against Group D posts relying on Supreme Court judgment in Indra Pal Yadav, requesting fresh screening, post facto approval, seniority, promotions, and arrears. The Tribunal directed consideration of pending representations. Applicants submitted for disposal based on representation decision; respondents sought three months for reasoned order. OA disposed directing respondents to decide representations by speaking order within three months; no merits commented upon; no costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing and reliefs sought for service regularization. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties agree on representation disposal. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. direction for reasoned decision within three months. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
ORDER
PER HON’BLE JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J)
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. Through this original application, applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):
“1. To hold fresh screening for applicants with a view to regularize their services in terms of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Pal Yadav and regularize their services against Group D post with all consequential benefits.
2. To resend the name of the applicants for post facto approval and thereafter, regularize them alongwith due seniority, promotion, arrears of pay etc.
3. Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case, may also be passed.
4. Cost of the present case, as the applicants have unnecessary dragged into litigation.”
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the instant O.A. may be disposed of as applicants are only seeking decision on the representations preferred by them and ends of justice would be served if a direction is given by this Tribunal to the respondents/competent authority to consider and dispose of the pending representation of the applicants attached as Annexure No. A-20 [pages from 87 to 88] to this O.A. by way of reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned counsels for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicants representations are directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then at least three months’ time may be allowed for the same.
5. In view of the above submission, respondents/ competent authority are directed to consider and decide the representation of the applicants attached as Annexure No. A-20 [pages from 87 to 88] to this O.A. by way of reasoned and speaking order as per law within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, under intimation to the applicants forthwith.
6. It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon the merits of the case.
7. The OA is disposed of accordingly.
There is no order as to costs.
