Union Of India By The Govt Of v. The Central Administrative

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.03.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE K.K.SASIDHARAN AND THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN W.P.No.25281 of 2003 and W.M.P. No.31048 of 2003

1. Union of India, Rep. by the Government of India through the Chief Secretary to Government, Pondicherry.

2. The Secretary to Government (Health), Government of Pondicherry, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry.

3. The Director of Health and Family Welfare, Directorate of Health and Family Welfare Service, Government of Pondicherry, Pondicherry.

4. The Superintendent of Police (HQ), The Police Department, Government of Pondicherry, Chief Secretariat, Pondicherry. ... Petitioners Vs.

1. The Central Administrative Tribunals, Rep. by its Registrar, Chennai.

2. R. Govindarajan ... Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 19.08.2002 passed by the 1st respondent Tribunal in O.A.No.1293/2001 on the file of 1st respondent Tribunal and quash the same. For Petitioners : Mr.R. Syed Mustafa Spl.Govt.Pleader (Pondicherry) For Respondents : R1 - Tribunal R2 - Not Ready in Notice https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

K.K.SASIDHARAN,J.

The Central Administrative Tribunal by order dated 19 August 2002 allowed the original application filed by the second respondent and directed the petitioners to reimburse the medical claim preferred by him within a period of eight weeks. Though the writ petition was filed in the year 2003, effective steps were not taken by the petitioners to serve notice on the second respondent.

2. There is no question of considering the legality and correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 19 August 2002 after a period of 16 years. The issue in question relates to reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a Government servant. We are of the view that there is no need to keep this writ petition pending, without effecting service on the second respondent. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution in spite of directing the petitioners to take notice.

3. The Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To The Registrar, The Central Administrative Tribunals, Chennai.

W.P.No.25281 of 2003 SKV(CO) VR(24/03/2017) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/