The Appellant is an aggrieved person and as such it is entitled to file the Appeal. (b) The condition imposed on the Appellant to maintain the value of its Letter of Credit equivalent to the outstanding invoices while directing the Gujarat Petrone..

The Appellant is an aggrieved person and as such it is entitled to file the Appeal. (b) The condition imposed on the Appellant to maintain the value of its Letter of Credit equivalent to the outstanding invoices while directing the Gujarat Petronet not to take coercive steps in the Impugned Order is fair and justified In view of the above, there is no merit in the Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Main Appeal, no Order need be passed in IA No.369 of 2013 45. The Appellant is directed to comply with the impugned orders of the Petroleum Board forthwith without any delay. The Petroleum Board may take up the Main matter and dispose of the same as early as possible after hearing the parties.

Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board Act, 2006

Tribunals have considered the submissions.  In our view, error is apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as the status of the applicant-respondent has not been the same as that of Shivendra Pal or Naresh Bagri.  They were working as driv..

Tribunals have considered the submissions.  In our view, error is apparent in the order of the Tribunal, as the status of the applicant-respondent has not been the same as that of Shivendra Pal or Naresh Bagri.  They were working as driver, which is a Group C post on no work no wages basis; whereas the applicant-respondent was working as a casual worker with temporary status. It is a matter of common knowledge that appointment as causal worker is made against Group D post.  Besides, it is also not mentioned in the order of the Tribunal that the applicant had ever applied for the post of Driver. Thus, the applicant not having worked on the post of Driver on casual basis cannot claim benefit of age relaxation or other relaxation which has been extended to Shivender Pal and Naresh Bagri in terms of the order of the Tribunal. In view of the above, in our view, the Review Application deserves to be allowed.  It is accordingly allowed. The order of the Tribunal dated 22.12.2011 is hereby recalled and the OA is restored to its original number. Let the OA itself be listed for final disposal on 29.5.2014.