Union Of India v. The Registrar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07.09.2018 CORAM :

The Hon'ble Mrs.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY W.P. No.25232 of 2017 1.Union of India, Rep. by The Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi.

2.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

3.Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Division, Southern Railway.

.. Petitioners -vs1.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104.

2.Shri.A.Archibal Johnson Jesudian, Station Superintendent, Nazareth Railway Station, Madurai Division, Southern Railway.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to O.A.No.1758 of 2013 and order passed thereon dated 10.03.2017 and quash the same. For Petitioner :

M/s.T.P.Savitha For Respondents :

R-1 Tribunal :

No appearance for R-2

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice) Heard learned counsel for both sides.

2.The petitioners-Union of India have preferred this petition being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 10.03.2017 passed in O.A.No.310/01758/2013 filed by the second respondent. By the said order, the second respondent's OA for upgradation came to be disposed of.

3.We have perused the order dated 10.03.2017. In the said order, it is noted that the Tribunal had earlier disposed of the OA preferred on the same ground by order dated 01.02.2017. The said OA is 310/001764/2013. The order dated 10.03.2017 further shows that before the Tribunal, it was argued by the learned counsel for the present respondent that he was similarly situated as the applicant in O.A.No.310/001764/2013. Before the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India submitted that if the second respondent-applicant is similarly situated as the applicant in O.A.No.310/001764/2013, they would have no objection to consider the prayer of the secondrespondent/applicant. Thus, it is seen that the learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India had made a statement before the Tribunal that they would have no objection to consider the prayer if the second respondent was similarly situated as the applicant in O.A.No.310/001764/2013.

4.In view of the above facts, the Tribunal had disposed of the present OA directing that the earlier order shall cover the second respondent if he is similarly situated. Thus, it is seen that there is no positive direction to the petitioners for granting the relief and the petitioners have only been directed to extend the same relief if the second respondent is similarly situated.

5.In this view of the matter, we see no good ground to interfere with the impugned order.

Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VIII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

sra To 1.The Chairman to Govt. of India, Railway Board, New Delhi.

2.The General Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai 600 003.

3.The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Madurai Division, Southern Railway.

4.The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, Chennai 600 104.

+1cc to M/s.Savitha Advocate SR.NO.61975 MG(CO) sm:26.9.2018 W.P.No.25232 of 2017