Tuesday, October 4, 2011

OA NO.372/10 on 21-02-2011 -- oral

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH:BANGALORE

ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.372/10

DATED THIS THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011

HON'BLE SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER (A)

HON'BLE SHRI V.AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (J)

Dr C.Nagaraj,
S/o S.Chandrashekar,
Age 60 years,
Research Officer (Medical),
Regional Office for Health
& Family Welfare - NVBDCP
Kendriya Sadan,
F-Wing, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034.

R/o No.34, Sajjan Rao Road,
Visweswarapuram,
Bangalore - 560 004. .... Applicant

(By Shri Vidyanand Arali, Advocate for Shri C.R.Goulay, Advocate)

vs
1. The Union of India,
represented by Secretary.
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011

2. Director General of Health Services,
Government of India,
Ministry of Health & Family Welfare,
Nirman Bhavan,
New Delhi - 110 011.

3. Director,
National Vector Borne,
Disease Control Programme,
22, Shamnath Marg,
Delhi - 110 054.

4. The Administrative Officer,
National Vector Borne,
Disease Control Programme,
22, Shamnath Marg,
Delhi - 110 054.

5. Senior Regional Director,
Regional Office for Health & Family Welfare,
Kendriya Sadan,
F-Wing, Koramangala,
Bangalore - 560 034. .... Respondents


O R D E R (ORAL)

SMT LEENA MEHENDALE, MEMBER(A):

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. By perusing the records we find that there is an inordinate delay in the matter The OA was filed in August, 2010 and the office had raised certain objections dated 31.08.2010 after that the applicant remained absent on several occasions and till today the office observation remains un complied with. On 27.01.2011 itself the learned counsel for the applicant had prayed for a last chance to comply with the office observation. In view of this, we do not think that there is any seriousness on the part of the applicant in the matter. Hence the OA is dismissed.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant once again prayed for 2 weeks' time to comply with the office observation. However, we do not see any merit in adjourning the matter. Hence, OA is dismissed. At the request of the learned counsel for the applicant liberty is given to file a fresh OA subject to limitation.

(V.AJAY KUMAR) (LEENA MEHENDALE)
MEMBER (J) MEMBER (A)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment