Rajesh Kumar Son Of Pradeep Kumar Sharma v. Union Of India Through General Manager,

1 30-WP-3438-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3438 OF 2024 Rajesh Kumar Son Of Pradeep Kumar Sharma

...Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India Through General Manager, Western Railway and Anr.

...Respondents

**** Mr. Simerpreet Singh Chabra i/b K. Juris Law Firm, Advocate for the Petitioner.

None for the Respondents.

**** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2025.02.24 19:34:09 +0530 CORAM :

A.S.CHANDURKAR AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE :

24th FEBRUARY 2025 P.C. :

1.

Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. 2.

The challenge raised in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Mumbai in Original Application No. 529 of 2013 dated 29.11.2019. In the said original Application, the order dated 19.10.2012 terminating the services of the Petitioner as 'Substitute Bungalow Peon', was under challenge. 3.

The Petitioner came to be appointed by an Order/Memorandum dated 28.05.2012 as a 'Fresh face Bungalow Peon'. In the Memorandum, it was stated that after completion of 120 days of continuous and satisfactory service duly certified by the officer concerned, the Petitioner would be granted 'Temporary Status'. Since the services of the Petitioner came to be terminated without grant of Sneha Chavan 1/2

2 30-WP-3438-2024.doc Temporary Status, the Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal for challenging the same. The Tribunal considered the notes of internal communication dated 15.12.2012 wherein it was stated that the services were not found satisfactory and despite instructions and counseling, there was no improvement seen. On that basis, the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application.

4.

We have heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and we have perused the relevant material on record. It may be stated that in the Memorandum dated 28.05.2012 one of the conditions imposed was rendering of continuous and satisfactory services for a period of 120 days for being granted 'Temporary Status'. The material on record indicates that the Secretary to the General Manager did not find the services of the Petitioner satisfactory despite instructions. For this reason, the Petitioner was not granted 'Temporary Status'. We do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in accepting the notes of the internal communication and upholding the order of termination that was issued in terms of Memorandum dated 28.05.2012. 5.

In the absence of any jurisdictional error, there is no case to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (A.S.CHANDURKAR, J.) Sneha Chavan 2/2