Kameshwar Prasad And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5176 of 2017 ===========================================================

1. Kameshwar Prasad, Son of Late Nanhak Ram, Resident of Village-illageKatari Hill, P.S.-Chaundauti, District-gaya

2. Dinesh Kumar Rai, Son of Late Yogendra Shukla, Village-Govindpur Jhakharaha, P.S. Rajapakar, District-Vaishali

3. Rajendra Kumar Sharma, Son of Late P.N. Sharma, Mohalla-Loko Colony, quarter No.118e, P.S.-Khagaul, District-Patna.

4. Ram Lagan Vishwakarma, Son of Dukhi Mistry, Mohalla-Officer Colony, Quarter No. 413 Ab, P.S.-Khagaul, District-Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur

2. The Chief Personal Officer, E.C. railway, Hajipur.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Danapur

4. The Senior Divisional Personal Officer, E.C. Railway, Danapur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwendra Sharan Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Kalpana, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 09-05-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the Union of India i.e. Railways.

The impugned order is dated 18.10.2016 passed in O.A. No. 744 of 2016. The Central Administrative Tribunal after hearing the parties has dismissed the O.A. on two grounds that the challenge is being made to circular dated 25.05.2004 in the year 2016 that too when in the previous round of litigation, which was O.A. No. 468 of 2006, no such challenge was shown. Only after the previous

Patna High Court CWJC No.5176 of 2017 dt.09-05-2017 2/2 O.A. No. 468 of 2006 was disposed of with certain observations and finding, now as a via-media attack is on the circular, which was very much available for challenge in the first round of adjudication. This was the reason why the Tribunal besides delay observed that the O.A. is also barred by res judicata as the same issue cannot be re-agitated, which was considered and decided in the year 2014 in O.A. No. 468 of 2006.

Both the reasons are good and valid reasons not to extend any relief in relation to the impugned order. The writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Arjun/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 11 .05.2017 Transmission Date NA