Central Administrative Tribunal
Anil Sharma vs D/o Phe on 30 December 2020
CENTR
HON’BL
1. Anil Shar
S/o Sh.Dh
R/o p190-
Jammu.
2. Sanjeev M
S/o Sh. S.
R/o 171, M
Jammu.
3. Satinder S
S/o Late S
R/o 27, B
Jammu.
4. Rakesh Sh
S/o Late S
R/o 230, S
Jammu.
5. Chander S
S/o Late S
R/o 3, Mo
Jammu.
(Advocate: None)
1.
State of Jamm
Principal Sec
To the Gover
PHE, I&FC D
RAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIB
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
T.A./61/9364/2020
This the 30th day of December, 202
LE MR. RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, M
rma aged 48 years
haram Pal Sharma
-C, Sanik Colony
Malhotra, aged 42 years,
.K. Malhotra,
Mohalla Jullaka,
Shishu, aged 49 years,
Sh. Tulsi Nath Shishi,
Bhagwati Bagar,
harma, aged 50 years,
Sh. B.R., Sharma
Shastri Nagar,
Shekhar Gupta, aged 49 years,
Sh. C.L. Gupta,
ohalla Kaleethain,
...........
Versus.
mu & Kashmir, through
cretary
rnment,
Department,
BUNAL
20
MEMBER (J)
.............Applicants
:: 2 ::
Civil Sectt. Jammu.
2.
Nitya Nand Raina S/o
Ram Ratan Raina,
R/o Vill. Bhaddu, Teh.Billawar,
District Kathua.
...................Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Sudesh Magotra, DAG)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
[O R A L] Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member (J): - Despite sending the pin to the learned counsel for the applicant, he has not appeared for the Video Conference. He has also not picking up the phone.
2. Shri Sudesh Magotra, learned counsel for the respondents is present.
3. The Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 07.10.2020 directed the applicant to appear before this Tribunal on 30.12.2020 i.e. today. Neither the applicant nor the learned counsel for the applicant put in appearance on behalf of the applicant.
4. It appears that applicant has lost interest in prosecuting the case. Hence, the same is dismissed due to non-appearance of applicant. No costs.
(RAKESH SAGAR JAIN)
MEMBER (J) Ak/-
:: 3 ::