S.C.CHATURVEDI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by judgement and order dated 21.06.2002 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench in O.A. No.267 of 2001 with M.A. No.332 of 2001. The Tribunal must have faced a tough time in understanding the controversy raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the O.A. As this Court has also felt the same difficulty despite the fact that there are two learned advocates assisting the Court on behalf of the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr.Malhotra firstly tried to explain the case of the petitioner and the grievance of the petitioner. Later on Ms.Sunita S. Chaturvedi tried her best to explain the case of the petitioner and the grievance of the petitioner. The Tribunal has rightly mentioned in para 11 that,

(2.) IN fact, the Tribunal was constrained to record in earlier para 8 as under:

(3.) INTERESTINGLY , the O.A. was filed in the year 2001, viz. in the year when the petitioner was to retire in September in the same year-2001. This could be only for obvious reasons that in the event his claim is not found favour with the Railway authorities the petitioner is not to lose anything even if the authorities being annoyed of unreasonable and untenable claim. When it was put to the learned advocates as to why the claim for officiating allowance/ arrears from 01.03.1993 to 01.03.1995 was made, whereas fixation of pay with effect from 1991-95 was claimed, that too with interest at the rate of 18%, the learned advocate submitted that 'officiating allowance' becomes due and payable only on expiry of two years. When it was inquired from the learned advocate as to under which rule the 'officiating allowance' becomes payable on expiry of two years, the learned advocates for the petitioner are not able to point out any such rule. Be that as it may, these facts are set out only for the purpose to show that this Court is yet to come across a more misconceived and mis- coordinated petition.