Disposed

Syed Mohd Aley Raza v. Union of India

CAT15 Sept 2026O.A./353/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an orphan order disposing of a service matter without examining merits. The Tribunal directed the applicant to file a fresh representation and the respondent authority to decide it within two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Permission to file a fresh representation to be considered within two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

Syed Mohd Aley Raza vs Union of India — CAT (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Page 1 of 2

¶2

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW

¶3

Original Application No. 332/00353/2016

¶4

This the 15^th day of September, 2026

¶5

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)

¶6

Syed Mohd Aley Raza, aged about 61 years, son of Late Shri S.A. Yasin Zaidi, Resident of – A/8, Bulandbagh, Near City Station, Jagat Narain Road, Lucknow.

¶7

…..Applicant.

¶8

By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

1. Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Communication & IT, Department of Telecommunication, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001.

¶11

2. The Chief Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, New Delhi.

¶12

3. The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, UP East, Telecom Circle, Lucknow.

¶13

..... Respondents.

¶14

By Advocate: Shri Alok Shukla for Resp.No.1. Shri Balendu Bhaushan Tripathi for Resps.No.2 and 3.

¶15

O R D E R (ORAL)

¶16

Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.

¶18

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if this O.A. is disposed of by

¶19

Page 2 of 2

¶20

giving permission to the applicant to file a fresh representation ventilating his grievance with a direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the said representation filed by the applicant by passing a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time to be fixed by this Tribunal.

¶21

3. To this, learned counsel for the respondents orally opposed, however, submitted that in case the applicant’s fresh representation is directed to be decided in the manner suggested, then a period of at least two months may be allowed for the same.

¶22

4. Keeping in view the innocuous prayer made by the applicant, this O.A. is disposed of finally, without going into the merits of the case, with a direction to the applicant to prefer a fresh representation within two weeks from today and respondents/ competent authority shall consider and decide the said fresh representation filed by the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of such representation in accordance with law and relevant rules by passing a reasoned and speaking order under intimation to the applicant.

¶23

5. It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon the merits of the case.

¶24

The OA is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.

¶25

Amit Kumar

¶26

(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A) Member (J)

¶27

Ak/-

Syed Mohd Aley Raza v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Syed Mohd Aley Raza v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arif Ramzan Parray vs General Administrative Department

Mohammad Shafi Sofi vs Health and Medical Education Department

Subhan Ali vs Department of Posts

Ravi Kant Pandey vs Department of Defence Production

Suraj Bhan vs Ordnance Factory

Firdous Ahmad Giri vs Home Department

K K Umadevi vs the General Manager Southern Railway Hq Office Park Town Chennai

Mahesh Kumar vs General Manager, N E Rly