Dr. K.B.S. Rajan: Vide order dated 23.2.2010, OA-623/2010 was disposed of with the following directions:- 2. Learned counsel submits that the respondents should consider his case and if they are of the view that the case of the applicant is premature at least the reasons should be informed so that the applicant could understand the situation and if necessary contest the same. We, therefore, dispose of this OA without going into the merits of the matter at this stage, by asking the respondents to pass a speaking order with regard to the request of the applicant for fixation of seniority, in accordance with the rules and standing instructions regarding reservation for physically handicapped within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The OA be also treated as a supplementary representation in that regard. No costs.
2. The respondents had initially passed an order dated 8.6.2010, which, according to the applicant, is nowhere near to the compliance as directed in our order. He has, therefore, prayed for execution of the order dated 23.2.2010. Subsequently, the respondents have passed a detailed order dated 9.2.2011, which relates to affording of seniority to the applicant and also which touches the point of reservation for physically handicapped. In paragraph 5 of the said order dated 9.2.2011, the respondents have stated that the applicant has not given any reasons as to why his seniority should be shown at some other place than the one, which figures in the gradation list. Again, they have stated that no reason has been given to fix his seniority retrospectively. Insofar as the reservation for the handicapped is concerned, it was mentioned that the post of different physically handicapped categories was to be identified and the official was ordered to be promoted pending finalization of identification of the post to any of the stationary office by SSRM, Air Mail Sorting Division. Accordingly, the orders were issued posting the applicant as LSG Supervisor, DIMC-I Vasant Lok. Since the official was promoted w.e.f. 6.7.2009, there is no question of including his name in the list of 42 LSG officials provided to him on 13.11.2007.
3. Learned counsel for applicant argued that since the OA was not decided on merit and the reply given by the respondents was not in accordance with the directions given, the OA could be revived.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that if the applicant has any grievance against the order passed, he has to file a fresh OA.
5. Arguments were heard. Once an order has been passed disposing of an original application, the question of revival of the order does not arise. Provision exists only for review of the order and that too on the basis of error apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, in the original order, the merit of the case having not been gone into and OA having been disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order, when such a speaking order has been passed, any grievances arising out of it should be ventilated only through a separate OA, as revival of the earlier OA is not provided for in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 or Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987. The fact that earlier order has not been passed on merits by filing a fresh application challenging the order dated 9.2.2011 of the respondents or for that matter the earlier orders, if any, which may have been referred to in OA 623/2010, there cannot be any question of res judicata.
6. In view of the above, MA is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to file a fresh OA in case he is not satisfied with order dated 9.2.2011. No costs. ( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Dr. K.B.S. Rajan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/
Comments