Vijay Shankar Prasad v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21527 of 2014 =========================================================== Vijay Shankar Prasad, son of Late Mahamuni Prasad, Ex-Shuntman (SM/MGS) ECR, Mugalsarai, Resident of Village- Churamanpur, P.S. Buxarr (Industrial), District- Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Chairman, Ministry of Railway, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager (P) East Central Railway, Hajipur.

3. The Divisional Manager (P) East Central Railway, Mugalsarai, (U.P.)

4. The Senior Divisional Pesonnel Officer, East Central Railway, Mugalsarai (U.P.)

5. Kanhiya Pandey (Leverman) F/o Bhulan Pandey (SM/MGS) East Central Railway, Mugalsarai (U.P.) .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nil Kamal, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. Kumar Alok, Advocate.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 24-08-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The challenge in the present writ application is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short "the Tribunal") on 31st of October, 2014 in O.A. No. 050/00736 of 2014 whereby, an Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for the reason that the same is not maintainable as such an application is for implementation of earlier order passed by the Tribunal.

3. The relief claimed in the two Original Applications

2/4 i.e. O.A. No. 871 of 2013 and O.A. No. 736 of 2014 are reproduced in juxtaposition:- O.A. No. 871 of 2013 O.A. No. 736 of 2014 8(a). Respondents be directed to 8(a) Respondent No. 02 be directed to consider the case of applicant compliance the order passed by this Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 871 for appointment of his son under the LARGESS Scheme of 2013 disposed of on 27.3.2014 as per the amended contained as Annexure-6 to this Notification of letter application.

(Annexure-1) vide Annexure8(b) Respondent no. 2 be directed to 4 immediately before the recruit the ward of applicant as per superannuation of applicant the letter of Respondent no. 01 i.e. 31.1.2014.

bearing RBE No. 131/2010, dated 8(b). Respondents be directed to 11.09.2010 (Annexure-1) under consider the case of applicant LARGESS Scheme which was under LARGESS Scheme as amended by Respondent no. 1 per his application proforma himself bearing RBE No. 4/2012 (Annexure-3) in light of dated 3.1.2012 contained as Annexure-4 and the same is Annexure-4 to this application, not debarred to applicant due under which PET followed by to applicant is going to be written examination dispensed with superannuated on 31.1.2014.

under LARGESS Scheme. But 8(c). Respondents be directed to respondent no. 2 and 3 compell to accept their own letter by the applicant alongwith other which they order to dispense candidates whose minimum qualification fixed for 8th passed to with written test for recruitment of wards vide appear into written test of Notification amended to Mathematics, Arithmatics, earlier Notification for Intelligentia test, Reasoning etc. to written test in favour of the only appoint on the basis of pick applicant before his and choose method arbitrarily, malafide illegally 1st (applicant) superannuation if applicant examination held on 26.08.2012,

3/4 superannuated from service 29.12.12 after amended order dated 03.01.2012 (Annexure-4), 3rd and during the pendency of 4th examination was held on proceeding or the present application of this Tribunal 24.11.13 & 16.5.2014, against again than applicant would not be dispense with examination (Anx-5).

debarred from relief under 8(c) Respondent no. 2 be directed to amended Notification (Annappoint the ward of applicant,

4) for voluntary retirement although similarly situated ward of and appointment of his word Respondent no.

has been under LARGESS Scheme.

appointed under LARGESS 8(d). Respondents be directed to Scheme.

dispose of the application/Representation of applicant pending before Respondent contained as Annexure-5 before superannuation of applicant i.e. 31.1.14.

8(e). Respondent be directed to appoint the son of applicant and declare retire to the applicant under LARGESS Scheme immediately under amendment Notification (Annexure-4) before his retire i.e.

31.1.2014 the same would not be debarred, if applicant get the age of superannuation (31.1.2014).

4. A perusal of the relief claimed in both the Original Applications would show that the relief claimed in the second

4/4 Original Application is the same as in the first Original Application inasmuch as the petitioner has sought implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal in the First Original Application. The second prayer in the subsequent Original Application is combination of 1st and 2nd prayer in the first Original Application. Since substantially, the second Original Application is for claiming the same relief in the first Original Application, which is decided, therefore, the petitioner cannot file the second Original Application for implementation of the order passed in the first Original Application. The relief claimed is of appointment of the son of the petitioner as he is suffering from physical disability and the scheme framed provides for appointment of a ward of an employee.

5. In view thereof, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Tribunal which may warrant interference in the present writ application.

6. The writ application is, thus, dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) P.K.P.

N.A.F.R.

U