Patna High CourtC. REV./121/2014allowed

The Union Of India Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur And ORS. v. S.N.P. Bhawsinka

2015-07-10Mr. Justice Vikash Jain,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.121 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16541 of 2011 ======================================================

1. The Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

2. The C.A.O. (Con), North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.

3. The D.R.M., North Eastern, Railway, Lucknow

4. The C.A.O. (Con), East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna.

5. The Deputy C.E. (Con), -I, East Central Railway, Danapur .... .... Petitioners

Versus

S.N.P. Bhawsinka, son of Late G.L. Bhawsinka resident of MohallaMarwari Mohalla, P.O.+ P.S- Gopalganj, District- Gopalganj, presently working as Junior Engineer- II, (W), on Adhoc under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railway, Danapur, now (Con), under Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) Works-I, East Central Railway, Mahendrughat, Patna ( Bihar) .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Mr. Prijat Saurav, Advocates For the Respondent : None ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN) 10-07-2015 The present petition has been filed for review of the order dated 13.09.2013 passed in CWJC No. 16541 of 2011, inter alia, allowing the writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order under review has been passed through inadvertent oversight of condition nos.4 and 6 of the Assured Career Progression Scheme.

3. Despite valid service of notice, none appears on behalf of the sole respondent at the time of hearing of the

Patna High Court C. REV. No.121 of 2014 (8) dt.10-07-2015 2/2 review petition.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and upon a careful consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view that the review petition is fit to be allowed.

5. The order dated 13.09.2013 passed in CWJC No. 16541 of 2011 is, accordingly, set aside. The review petition stands allowed.

6. Let the matter be listed for admission in regular course.

(Vikash Jain, J.) I. A. Ansari, J. :

I agree.

(I. A. Ansari, J.) B.T/- U