Patna High CourtCWJC/7474/2009dismissed

Shiv Nandan Paswan v. The Union Of India And ORS

2015-07-28Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7474 of 2009 =========================================================== Shiv Nandan Paswan, son of Sri Bisheshwar Paswan, resident of village and P.O. - Karnauti, P.S. - Bakhtiyarpur, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India, through Director General Department of Post, Government of India, New Delhi.

2. The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna.

3. The Director of Postal Services, Patna Region, Patna.

4. The Superintendent of Post Office, Nalanda Division, Biharsharif.

5. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Nalanda, North Subdivision.

6. The Sub-divisional Inspector of Post Office, Nalanda, North Subdivision, Barh. .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Shanti Kumar For the Respondent : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, SCG II Mr. Ravinder Kumar Sharma (CGC) =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 28-07-2015 We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner who was applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna and learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 580/1997 which was dismissed on 18.02.1998 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (in short the "Tribunal") on the ground that, in the application, petitioner had challenged the order of his termination

Patna High Court CWJC No.7474 of 2009 dt.28-07-2015 dated 25.07.1990 serving as daily wager in the year 1997, and as such, the claim was barred in terms of Section 21 of the Act. The Tribunal also noticed that the applicant had moved O.A. before the Tribunal in 1996, but, withdrew the same. He had then even moved to Industrial Disputes Tribunal without success.

In our considered view, the Tribunal has not erred in not entertaining his application. We, therefore, find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/N.F.A.R.