G.VENKATESHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Ms. Vinita Vinayak, learned counsel appearing for Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa for the petitioner.

(2.) BY way of the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.2.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in R.A. No.89 of 2004 with M.A. No.679 of 2004 in O.A. No.362 of 1994 whereby the review application of the petitioner came to be rejected by the Tribunal.

(3.) AFTER absorption, as the petitioner was absorbed in Group D post, he filed Original Application No.362 of 1995 claiming that he should be absorbed in Group C post or his pay should be protected. The Tribunal vide order dated 20.7.2000 directed the petitioner to make representation and the respondents were directed to consider the representation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation. The said representation was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 1.6.2004 on the ground that on the basis of the willingness of the petitioner, he was absorbed in Group D Post.