Surendra Kumar v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11690 of 2017 ========================================================== Surendra Kumar, S/o Vinod @ Binod Prasad Singh, Resident of VillagePasraha, P.S.-Pasraha, District-Khagaria. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union of India through its General Manager, East central Railway, Hajipur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur.
3. The Divisional Personal Oficer (I.R.), East Central Railway, Sonepur. .... .... Respondents ========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate For the Railways : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharan, Advocate ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 12-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents representing the Railway.
Perused the order dated 02.12.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 269 of 2016.
Both the grounds, which have been indicated in the impugned order, that the father of the petitioner is involved in a criminal case, which is still pending, therefore,
Patna High Court CWJC No.11690 of 2017 dt.12-09-2017 he cannot be permitted to go for voluntary retirement to derive the benefits of LARSGESS Scheme, and secondly that the petitioner, not being a Railway employee, is not entitled to challenge the order of rejection. If at all father of the petitioner who was railway employee should have been aggrieved by such order of rejection, but he chose not to approach the Tribunal are correct reasons for dismissal of O.A.
The Writ application is dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.) Rajeev/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.09.2017 Transmission Date NA