Gaurikant Prasad v. The Union Of India And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 5393 of 2013 =========================================================== Gaurikant Prasad S/O Late Harinandan Prasad Resident Of Village/ MohallaChandbara, P.S- Town, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India Through The Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway At Hazipur.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway At Sonepur.
4. The Divisional Personnel Manager, East Central Railway At Sonepur.
5. The Divisional Accounts Officer, East Central Railway At Sonepur. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr Rabindra Nath Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s : M/s Anil Kr Sinha & Abhimanyu Deo, Advocates =========================================================== CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 28-06-2016 Heard learned counsel for the appellant who has entered fresh appearance.
2 Having perused the record, we find that the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by which it has found that there is no cause to restore the original application which itself is barred.
3 The petitioner was a railway employee. He
Patna High Court CWJC No.5393 of 2013 dt.28-06-2016 2/2 superannuated in 1994 and at that time, there was a criminal proceeding pending against him as instituted by the Central Bureau of Investigation. He was acquitted in the trial in the year, 2001. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, he chose to move the Tribunal for his in-service dues from 1974 onwards to his promotional claims in the year 2010. The said Original Application was also then dismissed for non-prosecution. The restoration was filed two years after the dismissal with hardly any explanation for the delay. 4 In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere. This application is dismissed.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) U M.E.H./-