P.S.VIMAL Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE had heard the petitioner who appeared in person at length on January 24, 2013. Except to help us understand his grievance the petitioner could not render further assistance; with reference to the pleadings before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the orders passed from time to time disposing of the Original Application filed by him; which order was set aside by this Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner resulting in the Tribunal being required to reconsider the matter and at that stage we find that this Court had highlighted the area of dispute which required a factual adjudication by the Tribunal. We were thus constrained to reserve the matter to pronounce our judgment.

(2.) THE reason why we did so was to enable us to read the file in chamber keeping in view the grievance made by the petitioner.

(3.) THE reason for the Resolution is that the age of superannuation being 60 years and the vacancies for the year in question are computed in advance. The Indian Railways thought it desirable that those promoted in HAG should be left with at least one year service. The petitioner had challenged the legality and validity of the said circular which had resulted in him not being considered when the DPC met on June 02, 2001; inasmuch as the petitioner was to superannuate on July 31, 2001.