Can a cat bench appoint the council for the respondent

The case cannot be transferred on the basis of vakaltnama /counter affidavit filed by the counsel for the respondent(s). Please go through the order(s) again.

Standing Counsel for the government / respondent(s) can be same, rather generally same lawyer represent the department, nothing unusual, whiich is a new  experience for you.

It would be appropriate and better to seek professional services of a local prudent lawyer practicing service matters to protect your interest.

The transfer of case to another bench will not solve your problem.

You may have to concentrate on the main instead of getting diverted over such petty and non maintainable issues.

THanks for your reply, The service matter has seen handling of two councils earlier, and consequently took over by the petitioner, reason is not worth discussing here as that could influence the further hearing. TP is not applied in the background of vakalatnama or the notice replies, but to expedite the matter, as 2 respondents are from Delhi and the one from Gujarat has declined to contest beyond what they as a respondent in the earlier HC petition, order of which is the precidence of this OA in CAT. I am not too worried about the councils individually or together, but the authorites signing the affidevits, they should be such that decree enforces straight forward execution of the orders. The issue is, the union ministry purposefully cheated the autonomous institute by not following up CCS pension approval in the society, created under 1860 act, and lateron got it declined from Uttaranchal HC showing the employees as defaulters. I joined the institute from Govt of Gujarat, after 13 years of pensionable service period, knowing CCS pension has been approved by the ministry, finally took VRS from there, THerefore raising execution easeness is not conceptual, it has background.

Since the matter is pending before a legal forum you may confide in your own counsel on all such further issues.

The facts posted are too disjointed and confusing? Why should the applicant before the CAT Bench be concerned about the counsel for the respondents? Generally the respondents in matters before the CAT are public authorities and it is the standing counsels who represent them.

What is the OA No.? Which bench?

I am concerned about the council for the respondent, to avoid faul play, as the respondent is hiding behind the Autonomous institute, to protect their faul play in decling the pensionary benefits under CCS Pension rule 1972, despite having approved it in the year 1981, and now they are trying to argue in my case that the institute does not have the CCS pension. I am countering it; Institute does have the faciity, but not executed. Do you think a citizen surrender his fundamental rights before appearing in the court of law? As a petitioner one can always expect transperancy in the legal processes. Thank you fort the coment.

You have not been able to convey your problem in a way that could be understoodin one hearing