Khushalbhai Waljibai Makwana v. Western Railway Churchgate And ANR

Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date:

2025.03.13 19:10:07 +0530 TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6712 OF 2024 Khushalbhai Waljibai Makwana ... Petitioner versus Western Railway- Churchgate & Anr.

... Respondents ---- Mr.Shailesh Chavan, appointed through the Legal Aid Committee, for the Petitioner.

Mr.Niranjan Shimpi for the Respondents- Railways. Mr.Atmaram Meghwal, CLA, DRM Office, Western Railway present.

---- CORAM :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.

DATE : 10TH MARCH, 2025 P.C. :- 1.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner has filed this Petition after receiving the papers from Legal Aid Committee. 2.

Heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides for quite some time.

3.

The prayers put forth by the Petitioner in paragraph 15 (a) and 15 (a) (1), read as under :

"15(a) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents to decide the Representations dated 16.10.2023 given by Petitioner by giving opportunity to Petitioner of being heard within time bound in the interest of justice.

(a) (1) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to implentation of the order dated 17.12.1997 by the Hon'ble High Court in Contempt Petition No. 57 of 1997."

4.

The Petitioner was terminated from service after conducting the departmental enquiry. He raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2 (the Tribunal), Bombay, vide Reference No. CGIT- 2/47 of 1992. By the part I Award dated 11th July, 1995, the departmental enquiry was vitiated and the parties were allowed to lead evidence.

5.

The Petitioner was alleged to be unauthorizedly absent from 19th January to 20th January, 1989. On account of an issue with regard to his leave application form, he abused a Senior Officer and tried to attack him. The charges were proved in employment. At the time of recording the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the termination of the Petitioner was

unjustified. He was granted reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages vide the Judgment and Award dated 22nd December, 1995.

6.

The Western Railway approached the Division Bench of this Court in Letter Patent Appeal No. 1120 of 1997 in Writ Petition No. 386 of 1997. The Division Bench of this Court by order dated 10th December, 1997 dismissed the Appeal, affirming the dismissal of the Writ Petition by the learned Single Judge. 7.

The Petitioner, then, preferred a Contempt Petition bearing No. 57 of 1997. By order dated 17th December, 1997, the learned Single Judge Bench recorded a finding that the Respondents should pay to the Petitioner the back wages, within four weeks from reporting for duties and disposed off the Contempt Petition. 8.

We are informed that the Petitioner, thereafter, reported for duties, was granted continuity in service and full back wages were paid. Thereafter, the Petitioner was once again terminated from service from 25th February, 2002. Since then, he is out of employment.

9.

Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred a Review Petition dated 22nd July, 2002 addressed to the Superior Officer. The Competent Authority granted him compassionate allowance amounting to two-thirds of the pension and gratuity on humanitarian ground. Vide the affidavit-in-reply dated 12th February, 2025, the Affiant, namely, Amrut U. Solanki, Divisional Personnel Officer, Western Railway, Mumbai, makes specific statements as regards the amounts that have been paid to the Petitioner. 10.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the representation tendered by the Petitioner may be considered by the Respondents.

11.

We have perused the said representation delivered to the Respondents on 16th October, 2023. Despite being removed from service in 2002, the Petitioner has not challenged the said removal from service. In the representation, he primarily prays for grant of employment in the Indian Railways to his three sons. In addition, he prays that the salary be paid to him as per 7th Pay Commission.

12.

Once an employee has been disengaged and is out of employment, a terminated employee cannot claim payments to be calculated in terms of the 7th Pay Commission recommendations. Insofar as the claim of the Petitioner that his children be granted compassionate employment is concerned, the learned Advocate for the Railways submits, on instructions, that such compassionate appointment scheme is available only if the bread earner died in harness. There is no scheme for recruiting the children of a terminated employee.

13.

In view of the above, we do not find that there is any issue left for adjudication.

14.

This Writ Petition is disposed off.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)