ITEM NO.40 Court No.6 SECTION XI
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No(s).9547/2007
(From the judgement and order dated 07/12/2004 in CMWP No. 20486/2001 & CMRA No. 43037/2005 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD)
HARISH CHANDRA YADAV Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondent(s) (With office report )
Date: 13/05/2009 This Petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALTAMAS KABIR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CYRIAC JOSEPH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Pramod Kumar Yadav,Adv.
Mr. S.P. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Harish Chandra,Sr.Adv.
Mr. Kul Bharat,Adv.
Ms. Shalini Kumar,Adv.
Mr. A.K. Sharma,Adv.
Mr. D.S. Mahra,Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
Leave granted. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
(Ganga Thakur) ( Juginder Kaur )
P.S. to Registrar Court Master
Signed order is placed on the file. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3569 OF 2009
(Arising out of SLP(C) No.9547/07)
Versus
Leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the order of the Allahabad High
Court, in writ petition No. 20486/01, challenging the order passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, in O.A. No. 967/97, dismissing
the appellant's Original Application for non-compliance of the Court's order
regarding supplying of correct addresses of the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 before
the Tribunal.
The High Court while considering the matter had also taken into
consideration the submission which appears to have been made that the
appellant had filed his claim petition after a lapse of 17 years which is
disputed by the appellant. Furthermore, the High Court has also taken into
consideration the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition where it had been
indicated that the appellant had worked for 120 days in the year 1980.
The second part of the High Court's order was not really the
subject matter of the proceedings before the High Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we set aside
the orders passed by the High Court as well as the Tribunal and direct the
Tribunal to consider the appellant's revisional application No.967/97 afresh,
upon the appellant supplying the correct addresses of the respondents Nos. 1
and 2 within one month from the date of the communication of this order. In
the event the correct addresses are not supplied within the said period, this
order shall cease to be operative and the appeal shall stand dismissed.
The appeal is disposed of.
New Delhi, May 13,2009.