Patna High CourtCWJC/20278/2013dismissed

Nageshwar Prasad Singh v. The Union Of India And ORS

2015-05-15Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra,Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20278 of 2013 =========================================================== Nageshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Medani Prasad Singh Resident of VillageMatadih Paharpur, P.O. Jamalpur, P.S.- Dharhara, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, Through The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlee Place, Kolkata

2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

3. The CMPE/Diesel, Eastern Railway, Kolkata

4. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, Malda, West Bengal

5. The D.R.M., Malda Division, Malda, West Bengal

6. The A.D.R.M., Malda Division, Malda, West Bengal

7. The Sr. D.M.E. (Diesel), Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, Under Malda Division, Malda, West Bengal

8. The Sr. A.P.O. Office of The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Malda, West Bengal .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Manish Kumar For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Singh =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 15-05-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal by which the Tribunal has not acceded to his request for grant of 100% overtime. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal in detail and we find that the Tribunal has considered the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20278 of 2013 dt.15-05-2015 2/2 matter in the correct perspective. Petitioner, being Master Craftsman, claimed 100 % overtime. The Tribunal agreed with the authority that this was wrong and misleading charge. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that claim towards overtime did not amount to 100%. Some other amounts also should have been granted.

These are pure questions of disputed facts, which this Court in writ jurisdiction is inapt to decide under Article 226, 227 of the Constitution.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U