The Union Of India, Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of Posts, Ministry Of Communication, New Delhi And ORS v. Sachin Sankar Mankar

2024:BHC-NAG:12450-DB 1 909.wp.6153.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6153/2024 The Union of India Through it's Secretary and Ors. Vs.

Sachin Sankar Mankar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. P. V. Navlani, Advocate for Petitioners.

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : 13/11/2024.

.

Heard Mr. P. V. Navlani, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners.

2.

The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 09.11.2023 passed in O.A. No.2032/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Camp at Nagpur.

3.

The Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Circle Relaxation Committee to decide the claim of the respondent in the next CRC meeting and communicate the same to the respondent.

4.

It is the contention of learned Counsel Mr. Navlani that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned order as according to him, the petitioners while dealing with the claim of the respondent has followed due procedure.

5.

When confronted with the findings recorded by the Tribunal in para 6 of the impugned order, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is unable to explain the said

2 909.wp.6153.24 stand. Para 6 of the impugned order reads thus : "6. The counsel for the respondents submits that it will be appropriate if thematter is placed before the Circle Relaxation Committee along with the copy of the OA with its annexures for reconsideration."

6.

Apart from the above, this Court as well as the Tribunal are equally required to be sensitive to the social aspect which is sought to be achieved in the matter viz. the dependents of the deceased employee being entitled for the benefits.

7.

In that view of the matter, no case for causing interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction is made out. The petition fails and stands dismissed.

(MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) RGurnule