I.D. AGARWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the fact that the petitioner, who appears in person, has to come from a distant place for each hearing and the claim made by him is for his post-retirement benefits, he having been retired in Jan., 1983, we considered it appropriate that the matter should be disposed of on merits as early as possible. Notice was issued on 17.8.1992 and on 14.9.1992 Shri V.K. Verma, who appeared for the Union of India, was given time to look into the matter and file ls the reply. The next date fixed was 12.10.92, suit the convenience of Shri V.K, Verma. On 12.10.92 Shri V.K. Verma, counsel for the Union of India stated that he had not been given a copy of the petition till then. The matter was again adjourned and taken up on 17.11.92. Shri V.K. Verma did not appear on 17.11.92 and in his place Ms. Ameeta Singh appeared on his behalf only to seek an adjournment. In these circumstances, to avoid any further delay, Sri A. Subba Rao who was present in the Court and often appears for the Union of India, to appear I in this case and take necessary instructions to avoid the petitioner coming repeatedly to Delhi from a distant place where he lives. Shri A. Subba Rao, at our request, agreed to do so.

(2.) Today when the matter is taken up Sri A. Subba Rao has reported that the Central Agency has refused to give him any papers of this matter and, therefore, he is unable to assist the Court. We, therefore, relieve Sri A. Subba Rao from the obligation of appearing in this case to which he had agreed at our behest to avoid any further delay in this matter.

(3.) Reply on behalf of Union of India is filed today and a copy thereof is given to the petitioner. The petitioner may file reply, if any, within two weeks from today. The case be listed on 16th Dec., 1992.