Shashi Bhushan Sharma And ORS v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.335 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1765 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Shashi Bhushan Sharma S/o Late Kameshwar Sharma, Resident of Village- Janardanpur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur, at present working as Reservation Supervisor, E.C. Railway, Hajipur.

2. Manish Kumar S/o Shri Radheshyam Prasad, Resident of Village- Bandhar, P.S.- Hathori, District- Samastipur, at present working as Reservation Supervisor, Samastipur.

3. Abhilasha Kumari, W/o Sri Amar Kumar Gupta, Resident of Village- Birsinghpur, P.S.- Kalyanpur, District- Samastipur, at present working as Reservation Supervisor, Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Railway, New Delhi.

2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.

3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Samastipur Railway Division, ECR, Samastipur.

4. The Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Samastipur Rail Division, ECR, Samastipur.

5. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Samastipur Rail Division, ECR, Samastipur.

6. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, DRM/P, ECR, Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suneil Kumar Thakur For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S.D Sanjay (Addl. Soc. Gen.) Mr. Abhinay Raj, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 27-06-2018 We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the Railways.

We are not in agreement with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is an error in the

Patna High Court C. REV. No.335 of 2017(4) dt.27-06-2018 2/2 order, dated 24.07.2017, passed by the Division Bench in recording that there were limited number of seats and that is why people were being sent in batches for training. All these aspects have been well examined from the documents and that is why the Court came to a considered opinion that the learned Tribunal was in error to the said extent and that is why the order of the Tribunal was set aside to a limited extent and a direction was given for giving opportunity of training from the date from which the benefit would arrive.

No error apparent, therefore, emerges from the impugned order, which requires correction in the Civil Review Application.

Civil Review application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) skm/- U