The Union Of India v. Amrish Ranjan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4889 of 2021 ====================================================== 1.

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.- Hajipur, District- Vaishali (Bihar). 2.

The A.G.M. East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.- Hajipur, District- Vaishali (Bihar).

3.

The Divisional Railway Manager, Dhanbad Division, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

Amrish Ranjan Son of Shri Chitranjan Prasad presently posted at Krishna Shila Railway Station as Crew Controller under Chief Loco Inspector, Krishna Shila, Dhanbad Division, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dr. Anand Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Abdul Hakim ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI) 28-11-2022 In the instant petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:

(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari and order/orders, direction/directions for setting aside the order dated 21.01.2019 passed on OA No.

655 of 2015, whereby and where under the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench have allowed the OA and directed the petitioners/respondents to absorb the respondents/applicants in any suitable post carrying a grade pay 4200/-, in case it is not done, and respondents is continued to work as Crew Controller, he would be paid the higher grade pay of Rs.

4600/-. The learned Tribunal further also directed to pay the difference of grade pay and consequential benefits, contrary to the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4889 of 2021(13) dt.28-11-2022 2/2 extent rule of railway.

ii) For staying the operation of the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in O.A. No.

655/2015.

iii) For staying the proceeding of Contempt Petition (CCPA) No. 95/2019 arising from order dated 21.01.2019 passed in O.A. No. 655/2015.

iv) For any other appropriate order/orders of this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

Undisputedly, petitioners feeling aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 21.01.2019 preferred a review petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the petitioner suffered order in review also. In the present case order dated 13.11.2019 passed in the review application has not been assailed.

On this ground, the present petition stands dismissed reserving liberty to file a fresh petition.

(P. B. Bajanthri, J) ( Purnendu Singh, J) minu/aditya U