V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Counsel representing Union of India.
(2.) PETITIONER has approached this Court with request that Respondents be direct to appoint the Petitioner on the post of E.D.M.M. in Indian Postal Department and further prayer to decide the representation of the Petitioner. Record in question reflects that earlier Petitioner had filed Original Application No. 1393 of 1999 (Hukam Chand v. Union of India and Ors.) and the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench at New Delhi has proceeded to pass order asking the Respondents to complete the process of selection in accordance with Rules and instructions. Petitioner submits that thereafter Misc. Application was moved in the said application and the Tribunal on 23.09.2002 has proceeded to pass order directing the Respondents to complete the process of selection within a period of six months. Petitioner has stated that thereafter communication was sent on 02.07.2004 has been given wherein authorities concerned have mentioned that application of Petitioner would be considered at the point of time when the process of selection would be undertaken. Petitioner has now rushed to this Court for offering him appointment on the post of E.D.M.M in Postal Department.
(3.) ONCE Petitioner is claiming appointment in postal department and Petitioner claims that order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench at New Delhi has not been complied with in this background remedy of the Petitioner lies in approaching Central Administrative Tribunal itself in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India reported in : 1997 (3) SCC 261 and in view of additional fact that Central Administrative Tribunal has got enough authority to ensure compliance of its own order, as it is repository of power of contempt also.;