Central Administrative Tribunal
RUKHSANA HYDER vs N/A on 26 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL SRINAGAR
Order Sheet
Item no.: 3
M.A./1398/2026 (SRINAGAR)
[ MA FOR AMENDMENT ]
[ SENIOR CITIZEN ]
In
O.A./798/2024
RETIRAL BENEFITS
Court No.: 1
No of Adjournment:
Order Dated: 26/10/2026
RUKHSANA HYDER
Vs
N/A
For Applicant(s) Advocate : MR. MIR MAJID BASHIR THROUGH VC
For Respondent(s) Advocate : MR. SYED MUSAIB, DAG FOR R1 R3 R4 R7, MR. RAIS UD
DIN GANAIE, DAG FOR R5-R6, MR. IRSHAD AHMAD FOR R2, NONE FOR R8-R11
Order of The Tribunal
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.
1. Heard on M.A. No. 1398/2026 seeking amendment of the cause title in O.A. No. 798/2024. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that, during the hearing on 15.09.2026, learned counsel appearing for the official respondents pointed out that the administrative department of PMGSY/JKRRDA is the Public Works (R&B) Department and that there is no independent Commissioner Secretary for PMGSY/JKRRDA. Accordingly, a table amendment has been sought to correctly describe respondent No. 1 in the cause title.
2. In view of the grounds stated in the M.A. and the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, the M.A. is allowed. Respondent No. 1 shall accordingly be reflected as “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary to the Government, Department of Public Works (R&B),” in place of “Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Commissioner Secretary to the Government, Department of PMGSY/JKRRDA, Civil Secretariat, Srinagar.” The Registry shall carry out the necessary correction in the cause title accordingly.
3. As regards the pleadings, the record reveals that replies have been filed on behalf of respondents No. 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11. However, the Power of Attorney on behalf of respondents No. 10 and 11 has not been filed by Ms. Umiya Zehra, who has filed their reply. She is directed to file the requisite Power of Attorney in accordance with the applicable procedure.
4. Reply on behalf of respondent No. 8 has also been filed by learned counsel Mr. Aqib Mushtaq Sofi. However, none appears on behalf of respondents No. 8 to 11 today, either in person or through virtual mode.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1, 3, 4 and 7 is granted a last opportunity to file their reply, if not already filed, with an advance copy to the other side, on or before the next date of hearing.
6. List the matter on 29.12.2026.
Justice Ritu Tagore Member (J) Devendra Tripathi ( steno 'd' )