Union Of India & Anr. vs Shri Manmohan Juneja & Ors.
2016 Latest Caselaw 5000 Del

$~28
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%                        Judgment Dated: 1st August, 2016
+    W.P.(C) 6653/2016
       UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                                ..... Petitioners
                           Through :    Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC with
                                        Mr. Sunil Dalal, Mr. Ajay Kalra and
                                        Mr. Abhishek Ghai, Advocates
                           versus
       SHRI MANMOHAN JUNEJA & ORS.                          ..... Respondents

Through : Mr. Vanshdeep Dalmia, Advocate for respondent no.1.

Mr. Naresh Kaushik with Ms. Kanika Sharma, Advocates for respondent no.3/UPSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA

G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)

CM.APPL 27199/2016(Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

2. Application stands disposed of.

W.P.(C) 6653/2016

3. The petitioners are aggrieved by the interim order granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 10.03.2016. It is also the grievance of the petitioners that the matter has been adjourned from time to time. Mr. Narula also submits that the interim order having been granted in favour of respondent no.1 is causing hardship to the petitioners.

4. Notice. Counsel for respondents no.1 and 3 accept notice.

5. Heard.

6. From the order sheet placed on record dated 10.03.2016, we find that while granting an interim order, the learned Tribunal had fixed

18.04.2016 for final hearing. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 17.05.2016 for final hearing. On 17.05.2016, at the request of the applicant, the matter was adjourned to 23.05.2016. On the said date, the Bench did not assemble when it was adjourned to 01.06.2016 and then to 16.07.2016. On 16.07.2016, the matter was heard in part and was adjourned to 19.07.2016. On 19.07.2016, the matter was released from part heard and has been adjourned to 10.08.2016 to be heard by another Bench.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 submits that the respondent no.1 had never sought an adjournment and the applicant referred to by the petitioner is in fact an applicant.

8. Having regard to the submissions made by the contesting respondent no.1 herein and the petitioner, we dispose of this writ petition with a request to the Tribunal to hear the stay application on 10.08.2016 and endeavour to dispose of the same within six weeks.

9. Both parties agree not to seek an adjournment on 10.08.2016.

10. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

11. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms.

12. Dasti.

G.S.SISTANI, J

I.S. MEHTA, J AUGUST 01, 2016 pst