A S SAMPATHKUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the arguments of Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel representing the first respondent, Mr. K. Sridhar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel for the second respondent and Mr. K. Rajasekar, learned Government Advocate representing the third respondent and have perused the records.

(2.) THE petitioner is a member of Indian Forest Service and he filed O.A. No. 406 of 2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the Notification dated 29.10.1999 showing the year of allotment to various persons. THE Tribunal rejected the case of the petitioner by its order dated 29.4.2002. THEreafter, the petitioner filed a Review Application being Rev. A. No. 12 of 2002 and the same was also rejected by an order dated 11.7.2002. It is against these two orders, the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE decision relied on by the petitioner in this regard has no relevance to the issue on hand. THE Tribunal has correctly construed the scope of the amended rule. Even at the time of filing of the Original Application in the year 2001, the petitioner was 56 years old. By now, he would have retired from service. We do not think that the order of the Tribunal calls for any interference.