M.Selvam v. The Union Of India And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** WP.CT/6/2025 M. Selvam Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. Arul Prasanth ... for the petitioner Mr. V.D.Sivabalan ... for the respondent no.1.

Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi ... for the Administration March 10, 2025 [SR] Item No.4 1.

In view of the direction of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench in para 10 by which the respondent nos.2 to 5 (A & N Administration), was heard and the Tribunal was of the opinion that the reply of the respondent no.1 would be necessary for adjudicating the case and a direction was accordingly given upon the respondent no.1, to either file its reply to the original application or to authorise respondent no.2 to file a reply on his behalf within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order with a further direction that the applicant may file rejoinder to the same within a period of two weeks thereafter, the original application could not have been disposed of without finally deciding the matter.

2.

It seems at para 11 the observation that original application thus disposed of was an obvious mistake and an error apparent on the face of the order.

3.

In view whereof, the OA No.351/01346/2023 revives.

4.

Since the respondents are represented and having regard to the fact that the respondent no.2 has already filed its affidavit to the original application and the respondent no.1 was directed to file affidavit either through its Secretary or may authorize the respondent no.2 to file and affirm an affidavit on behalf of the respondent No.1, the said authority shall file affidavit peremptorily within four weeks from date, reply thereafter, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter. 5.

In view of the fact that it relates to pension, we direct the learned Tribunal to dispose of the original application after the affidavits are filed as expeditiously as possible. 6.

Liberty to mention the matter before the Tribunal for early hearing by either of the parties upon notice. 7.

The impugned order stands modified to the aforesaid extent.

8.

WP.CT/6/2025 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

9.

In spite of service none appears for the Union of India. Mr. V.D.Sivabalan, learned advocate, who usually represents the Union of India is requested to represent the Union of India. Copy of the writ petition has been handed over to Mr.V.D.Sivabalan during hearing in absence of the advocate on behalf of the respondent no.1.

10.

The appearance of Mr.V.D.Sivabalan shall be regularized accordingly.

( Soumen Sen, J. ) ( Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.)