Central Administrative Tribunal
Shiv Nath Srivastava vs NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY on 15 October 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
LUCKNOW BENCH, LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 332/00589/2026
This the 15th day of October, 2026
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR OJHA, MEMBER (J), HON’BLE MR. PANKAJ KUMAR, MEMBER (A)
Shiv Nath Srivastava, aged about 60 years, S/o Late Sri Ram Pragat Lal Srivastava, R/o-B-170, Dayal Residency, Near Aradhana Building, Chinhut, Lucknow.
…..Applicant.
By Advocate: Shri Praveen Kumar.
VERSUS
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. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
3. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
4. The Senior Divisional Finance Manager, North Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg, Lucknow.
..... Respondents.
By Advocate: Shri Rajendra Singh.
O R D E R (ORAL)
Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, Member-J
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
2. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant would be satisfied if this O.A. is disposed of by 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.
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.
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.
5. It is made clear that nothing has been commented upon the merits of the case.
The OA is disposed of accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
(Pankaj Kumar) (Justice Anil Kumar Ojha) Member (A) Member (J)
Ak/- Amit Kumar