P BABU RAO vs M/o Defence
- Court
- Central Administrative Tribunal
OA/336/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
(Circuit Sitting at Vijayawada)
OA/020/336/2016
th
VIJAYAWADA, this the 12 day of October, 2026
HON’BLE Mr. MANISH GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON’BLE Mr. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Shri P Babu Rao aged about 61 years
S/o Shri Subbaiah
Assistant Naval Stores Officer (Retd)
R/o 38-20-3, 104 Area
Marripalem, Visakhapatnam -530018
... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. T. Koteswara Rao)
Vs.
1. The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chief of Naval Staff,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence(Navy),
Directorate of Civilian Personnel,
Sena Bhavan,New Delhi- 110 011.
3. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Eastern Naval Command,
Visakhapatnam-530014.
… Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. B. Gayatri Varma, Sr. CGSC)
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 1 of 11
OA/336/2016
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Judicial Member)
The instant O.A. has been filed by the applicant, seeking the following
relief:
“Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal in the
interests of justice may be pleased to call for the records
pertaining to the panel for promotion to the grade of
Assistant Naval Store Officer-I for the years 2014-15,
2015-16 vide proceedings No.CP(G) 4005/ANSO-I/
DPC/2014-15-16 dated 29 January, 2016 and
consequential promotion orders No.CP (G) 4005/ANSO-
th nd
I/DPC/2014-15-16 dated 4 Feb, 2016 issued by the 2
Respondent and by declaring the same as arbitrary,
illegal, tainted with malice and violative of Article 14 &
16 of the Constitution of India, direct the Respondents to
consider the notional promotion of the Applicant against
the vacancies for the year 2014-15 that have arisen prior
to his retirement on 31.05.2015 with all consequential
benefits and pass such other and further order or orders
as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal in
the circumstances of the case.”
2(i). Highlighting the facts of the case, learned counsel for the applicant drew
our attention to the fact that the applicant, who was initially appointed as Store
Keeper on 15.12.1986 and later promoted to the grade of Assistant Naval Stores
Officer Grade-II (ANSO-II) in June 2011, retired on superannuation on
31.05.2015. He was empanelled for promotion to the grade of Assistant Naval
Stores Officer Grade-I (ANSO-I) for the year 2015-2016, vide letter dated
29.01.2016, i.e., after his retirement. There was a delay on the part of the
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 2 of 11
OA/336/2016
respondents in conducting the DPC, which was held only on 05.01.2016, i.e.,
post his retirement, and which considered the vacancies of 2014-2015 and 2015-
2016 together, in violation of the DoPT Model Calendar, which reads as under:
SUGGESTED MODEL CALENDAR FOR DPCs
EVENTS FINANCIAL
YEAR-BASED
CALENDAR
YEAR-BASED
(1) (2) (3)
(i) Vacancy year 2000-2001 2000
(ii) Crucial date for determining eligibility January 1, 2000 January 1, 2000
ACC CASES
[Cases where ACC approval is required (including
SAG/HAG grades/posts)]
(A) Completion of ACRs/Integrity Certificates/
Vigilance clearance/Seniority List/Penalty and
Vacancy position etc and forwarding DPC proposal
to the UPSC.
April – July 15,
1999
January – April
15, 1999
(B) Last date for sending complete proposal along
with relevant Recruitment/Service Rules to the
UPSC.
(Effort should be made to send the proposal to the
UPSC as soon as possible without waiting for the
last date).
July 15, 1999 April 15, 1999
(C) DPC to be held July 15, --
November, 1999
April 15 –
August, 1999
(D) On receipt of DPC minutes from the UPSC,
post-DPC follow-up action by the administrative
Ministry/Department.
December, 1999 September, 1999
(E) Approval of the ACC including communication
of its approval to the administrative Ministry/
Department.
January – March,
2000
October –
December, 1999
(F) Last date for getting ready the approved select
panel by the administrative Ministry/Department.
March 31, 2000 December 31,
1999
NOTE:-Dates/periods suggested in the Model
Calendar for DPC put no bar on earlier completion
of various pre/post-DPC related actions.
Every effort may, as such, be made for taking speedy
action in the matter without waiting for the last date
or completion of the period as suggested by the
Model Calendar for DPCs.
Non-ACC CASES
[Other grades/posts (with/without association of
the UPSC)]
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 3 of 11
OA/336/2016
EVENTS
FINANCIAL
YEAR-BASED
CALENDAR
YEAR-BASED
(1) (2) (3)
(C) DPC to be held August, 1999 –
January, 2000
May – October,
1999
(D) On receipt of DPC minutes from the UPSC,
post-DPC follow-up action (including approval of
the Competent Authority) by the administrative
Ministry/Department.
February –
March, 2000
November –
December, 1999
(E) Last date for getting ready the approved select
panel by the administrative Ministry/Department.
March 31, 2000 December 31,
1999
NOTE:-Dates/periods suggested in the Model
Calendar for DPC put no bar on earlier completion
of various pre/post-DPC related actions.
Every effort may, as such, be made for taking speedy
action in the matter without waiting for the last date
or completion of the period as suggested by the
Model Calendar for DPC.
2(ii). Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that though, under the
Rules, the applicant was eligible for consideration for 2014-15 as he had
completed the eligible service and was in the seniority list, he does not dispute
that he was empanelled for the year 2015-16 only for the purpose of notional
promotion. He further submits that, in an identical situation, one Mr. USVVN
Raju, who had also superannuated on 31.05.2015 and who had filed OA
No.335/2016, which came to be disposed of vide order dated 23.12.2024 with
the following directions:
“11. In the instant case, the applicant has taken a categorical plea
that 5 vacancies had arisen in 2014-15 and he stood at Sl. No.2 in the
seniority list of the ANSOs-II, circulated by the Integrated HQs
(Navy), New Delhi, vide letter dt. 15.01.2015. We have perused the
said seniority list, and the applicant stands at Sl.No.2. Despite the said
assertion of the applicant about the availabilty of 5 vacancies in 2014-
15, the respondents have not denied the same. The respondents have
also admitted that the DPCs are to be conducted as per the prescribed
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 4 of 11
OA/336/2016
time schedule given in the Model Calendar. It is seen that from the
very same seniority list, Sri A Ramamurhty, who is at Sl. No.1, was
promoted pursuant to the DPC, held on 01.05.2016. Therefore, had
the DPC been conducted in time, the applicant would have been
considered for promotion. Hence, the impugned action of the
respondents is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the
case of the applicant for notional promotion against the vacancies for
the year 2014-15, with all consequential benefits, within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.”
2(iii). Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that Mr. USVVN
Raju was empanelled for the year 2014-15, as reflected at page 5 of the paper
book, whereas the applicant herein was in the zone of consideration and was
empanelled for the year 2015-16.
3(i). Opposing the grant of relief, learned counsel for the respondents relies
upon the averments contained in the counter affidavit and submits that in
accordance with SRO 32/2009 for the post of ANSO-I “Assistant Naval Store
Officer Grade II with 03 years’ service in the grade rendered after appointment
thereto on a regular basis will be eligible for promotion. As the applicant has not
completed minimum eligibility service on crucial date of DPC i.e. 01st Apr 2014,
he was not eligible for consideration for promotion to the grade of ANSO-I in
the DPC year 2014-15. However, DPC for the grade of ANSO-I for the year
2014-15 for 04 vacancies and 2015-16 for 04 vacancies (including 03 carry
forward vacancies) was conducted by UPSC on 05 Jan 16. There were only 02
officers eligible for promotion during the DPC year 2014-15. The applicant
alongwith other officers were empanelled for promotion for the year 2015-16
vide IHQ/MoD(N) letter CP(G)/4005/ANSO-I/DPC/2014-15-16 dated 29 Jan
2016. As the applicant was retired on 31 May 2015, he was not promoted to the
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 5 of 11
OA/336/2016
grade of ANSO-I vide promotion order dated 04 Feb 2016, since retired before
the date of empanelment i.e. 31 May 2015. As per DoP&T OM No. 22011/4/98-
Estt(D) dated 12 Oct 1998 and DoP&T OM No. 22011/1/2014-Estt(D) dated 14
Nov 2014 name of the retired officer may be included in the panel, such retired
officials would however, have no right for actual promotion. It is further
submitted that, as per extant guidelines, promotion shall take effect only upon
assumption of charge by the incumbent officer, subsequent to issue of
empanelment and promotion orders.
3(ii). Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that there is no
denial of the fact as per the model calendar issued vide DoP&T OM
No. 22011/9/98-Estt(D) dated 8th September 1998. DPCs are to be conducted
as per the prescribed time schedule. However, DPC for the year 2014-2015 and
2015-16 could not be conducted in time due to pre-requisite formalities of DPC.
The DPC for the year 2013-14 was delayed due to process of incorporation of
mandatory requirement of disposal of below benchmark grading in accordance
with DoP&T OM NO. 21011/1/2010-Estt(A) dated 13 Apr 2010 (Annexure-R6).
As per the subject OM below benchmarks grading of ACR are required to be
communicated to the officer reported upon, representations are to be
communicated to the officer reported upon, representation are to be obtained and
disposed off before considering the ACR for promotion. Considerable time was
elapsed in the process of seeking representation and disposal action of below
benchmark grading in respect of Shri AP Wadkar, who was an eligible candidate
for the DPC year 2013-14. The DPC thus delayed and the panel could be issued
on 01 Dec 2014 vide IHQ/MoD(N) letter CP(G)/2005/ANSO-I/DPC dated 01
Dec 2014(Annexure –R7). This delay has made cascading effect on the time
schedule of the DPC for the year 2014-15. In order to avoid further delay of
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 6 of 11
OA/336/2016
future DPCs, the case for DPC 2014-15 and 2015-16 was processed together
which was finally concluded on 05.01.2016. Although, the applicant was
empanelled for promotion vide IHQ/MoD(N) letter CP(G)/4005/ANSO-
I/DPC/204-15-16 dated 29th January 2016, he was not promoted to the grade of
ANSO-I since retired before the date of empanelment i.e. 31st May, 2015, in
accordance with DoP&T OM NO. 22011/4/98/Estt(D) dated 12th October 1998
and OM No. 22011/2014-Estt(D) dated 14th November, 2014.
3(iii). It has also been highlighted that the applicant had not completed the
minimum eligibility service as on the crucial date of DPC, i.e., 01.04.2014, for
promotion to the grade of ANSO-I.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
5. We are of the considered view that there is no denial in the counter
affidavit filed by the respondents of the fact that the name of the applicant was
under the zone of consideration for the year 2015-16, and that the DPC could not
be conducted in time due to pre-requisite formalities of DPC. The DPC for the
years 2014-15 & 2015-16 was conducted only on 05.01.2016, by which time the
applicant had already superannuated. It is also noted that the respondents failed
to adopt the Model Calendar and, had the DPC been conducted on 05.01.2015,
the situation would have been different altogether, as the applicant would have
been in the zone of consideration while preparing the panel for the select list.
Since the name of the applicant appeared in the zone of consideration, reference
is drawn to the DoPT O.M. dated 14.11.2014, followed by another O.M. dated
25.01.2016. Availability of vacancies at the relevant point of time is not denied.
No plausible explanation is coming from the respondents as to why the
applicant’s case, even though under the zone of consideration, was not
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 7 of 11
OA/336/2016
considered at the appropriate time/ from time to time vis-à-vis the conduct of
DPC. In an identical situation, the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, in
Civil Writ Petition No.14372-2018 in Satya Narayan and Ors. vs. Union of
India and Ors. observed on 24 March, 2026 as under:
“(12). It is not in dispute that the petitioners were eligible and within the
zone of consideration for the vacancy year 2013-14 and that the DPC,
when ultimately convened, found them fit for promotion. It is equally not
disputed that the delay in holding the DPC for 2013-14 was not
attributable to the petitioners but arose because the department chose to
halt the promotion process in view of the ongoing litigation and interim
orders regarding merger/demerger and combined seniority. Once this
position is accepted, the petitioners' grievance is not for grant of
promotion in preference to others, but for restoration of an accrued right
which stood deferred solely due to administrative and judicial
contingencies beyond their control. (13). The respondents' reliance on
the OM dated 14.11.2014 to deny even notional promotion appears, on
a proper reading of that OM along with earlier and subsequent
instructions, to be misplaced. The OM of 14.11.2014 was issued in the
backdrop of earlier DoP&T instructions which mandated preparation of
year-wise panels and avoidance of clubbing of vacancies, and it clarified
that there is no bar to consideration of retired employees, who were
within the zone of consideration for the relevant year, while preparing
the panel. It further provided that such retired employees would have no
right to "actual promotion". The emphasis of the OM is on ensuring that,
for the purpose of determining the correct zone of consideration and for
preventing juniors from stealing a march over seniors due to delayed
DPCs, the names of retired officials must be included in the panel. Where
retired employees are included in the panel only for that limited purpose,
it is understandable that they cannot claim to be posted to the promoted
post or to receive full back wages after cessation of service.
(14). However, the situation in which an employee is denied promotion
during service due to factors completely foreign to his conduct or
eligibility, and where delay in convening DPCs results in his retirement
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 8 of 11
OA/336/2016
before the panel is finalized, stands on a different footing. In such cases,
courts have consistently recognized the doctrine of deemed or notional
promotion to prevent violation of Articles 14 and 16 and to ensure that
an employee is not penalized for administrative lapses or external events
such as imposition of election code of conduct.
(15). In Nirmal Singh 's case (supra), this Court, confronted with a case
where the promotion of the petitioner had been duly approved but not
implemented solely because the election code of conduct intervened
before issuance of the formal order, held that the petitioner could not be
made to suffer for such fortuitous circumstance and granted him deemed
promotion with all consequential benefits observing that but for the code
of conduct, he would have been promoted prior to his retirement. The
ratio of that decision, though arising in the context of election code, is
grounded in the broader principles of fairness and non-arbitrariness,
and applies equally where promotion is deferred due to departmental
decisions arising from litigation which ultimately ends without any
adverse finding against the concerned employees. (16). Moreover,
subsequent clarificatory instructions like DoP&T OM No.22011/3/2013-
Estt(D) dated 25.01.2016, though issued in the context of sealed-cover
cases arising from disciplinary or criminal proceedings, indicate the
policy trend of Government to protect the pensionary interests of retired
employees by granting notional promotion and consequential fixation of
pension once they are found fit. The OM specifically contemplates cases
where the Government servant has retired by the time he is exonerated
of all charges and provides that such an employee, if found fit on opening
of the sealed cover, is to be granted notional promotion from the date his
junior was promoted and is entitled to fixation of pension on the basis of
such notional pay. While the factual matrix of the petitioners may not
strictly fall within the sealed-cover category, the underlying principle is
that retirement should not operate as a bar to grant of notional
promotion and pension revision where the employee has been found fit
and the earlier denial of promotion was not on account of his own
delinquency.
(17). The respondents' reading of the OM dated 14.11.2014 as a
complete bar to notional promotion for retired employees conflates
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 9 of 11
OA/336/2016
"actual promotion", in the sense of assumption of duties and drawing of
full salary on the promoted post, with the distinct concept of notional
promotion for limited purposes like seniority and pension. The OM only
says that retired officials would have no right to "actual promotion",
which must be understood as no right to physical appointment to the
higher post. It does not prohibit the competent authority, or for that
matter a court exercising writ jurisdiction, from granting notional
promotion for the intervening period and corresponding revision of
pension, especially when juniors have actually been promoted and are
enjoying higher emoluments. In fact, as noticed earlier, DoP&T OMs of
09.04.1996 and 25.01.2016 permit inclusion of retired officials in the
panel and extension of notional promotion with pension fixation, in
appropriate situations.
(18). In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned communications dated 30.10.2017 and 16.01.2018, whereby
the petitioners' claim for promotion was rejected, are quashed. The
respondents are directed to treat the petitioners as having been
notionally promoted to the rank of Assistant Commandant (GD) against
the vacancies of the year 2013-14, with effect from the date on which
their immediate juniors were promoted, and to refix their pay notionally
for the limited purpose of recalculating and revising their pension and
other retiral benefits on that basis. The exercise of notional fixation and
revision of pension shall be completed within a period of one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this order.”
6. In view of the above settled proposition, it is crystal clear that the applicant
is entitled to notional promotion for the panel year 2015-16. Accordingly, the
action of the respondents in not considering and granting notional promotion to
the grade of ANSO-I is liable to be quashed and set aside. The respondent
authorities are directed to treat the applicant as having been promoted to the grade
of Assistant Naval Stores Officer-I, Group ‘A’ Gazetted, and to re-fix his pay
notionally for the limited purpose of revising his pension and retiral benefits.
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 10 of 11
OA/336/2016
The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. With the above directions, the O.A. is allowed. All pending MAs, if any,
are also disposed of. No order as to costs.
(VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI) (MANISH GARG)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
/pv/
Order dictated on : 12.10.2026
Order submitted on : 13.10.2026
DN: C=IN, O=Central Administrative Tribunal, OU=Central Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad Bench, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET="No. 05-10-193, 1st Floor,
HACA Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad", Phone=12d84631fad4985ed436f8e9bed43bf11c66dc25e028e9218a4d1d0fb79d7fe3, SERIALNUMBER= b9e3d3951b505950304a85c817eadedfffbcf53466121ac580715b2596ee45c4, [email protected], CN=PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
PADMAVATHI CHODAVARAPU Date: 2026.10.26 14:57:07-08'00'
Page 11 of 11