It was indicated in the said order that the appointment of the petitioner will be for a period of five years from the date of joining or till he attains the age of sixty two years whichever is earlier.
vs. Union of India Ors.,
Challenge to the transfer of the petition made in the High Court of Calcutta was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
21329/97 R.V. Mallikarjuna vs. Union of India and W.P. No.
The petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of the Act claiming that he is entitled to companytinue to hold the office as a Judicial Member until he attained the age of sixty two years and sought for various incidental reliefs.
He also made similar further representation on 1.5.2001 and 14.5.2001 to the Chairman, CAT and to the Secretary DOPT on 18.5.2001, 3.7.2001 and 4.7.2001.
He made a demand on 1.8.2001 to the similar effect.
The petitioner made a representation that he is eligible for re appointment after expiry of the term of five years until he attains the age of sixty two years as has been indicated by this Court in Sampath Kumar etc.
At a stage when the matter was heard and reserved for orders, that application came to be withdrawn to the file of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal by an order made by the Chairman.
In the meanwhile, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.
J U D G M E N T RAJENDRA BABU, J. By an order made on August 30, 1996 the Government of India appointed the petitioner, who was District and Sessions Judge in West Tripura, Agartala, as a Judicial Member in the Central Administrative Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal.
On 22.3.2001, the petitioner represented to the Chairman, CAT and the Secretary, DOPT for companysideration of his re appointment as Member with effect from 7.10.2001.
1987 1 SCR 435.
