Patna High CourtCWJC/17556/2015dismissed

Bimal Mandal v. The Union Of India And ORS

2016-05-17Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah,Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17556 of 2015 =========================================================== Bimal Mandal, son of late Mathura Mandal Resident of Village -Arma Police Station -Karja, District Lakhisarai.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Fairlee Place, Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata.

2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata.

3. The Chief works Manager, Jamalpur Railway Workshop, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur,Bihar.

4. The Personnel Officer, Jamalpur Railway Workshop, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur ,Bihar.

5. The Assistant Welfare Officer, Jamalpur Railway Workshop, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur ,Bihar.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 17-05-2016 The challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') in O.A. No. 050/00543 of 2015. The Tribunal has found that the claim of the petitioner is vague, stale and it was difficult for the Court to understand what the prayer was about. The averment of the petitioner is that juniors were promoted to the higher post when he was on deputation to the excadre post. As per the petitioner, he was on deputation during 1983 to

Patna High Court CWJC No.17556 of 2015 dt.17-05-2016 2/2 January, 1997 and again from January, 2002 to June, 2008. The Tribunal, thus, found that the first period is 17 to 32 years old and the second is 7 to 13 years old. Still further, the claim of the petitioner is that he should be promoted as Technical-2 with effect from 01.01.1984 i.e., a claim which is 30 years old. We do not find any error in the finding recorded by the Tribunal as the claim of the writ petitioner is grossly delayed. Thus, the present writ petition is dismissed.

(Hemant Gupta, J) (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J) Sujit/P.Kumar U