Babu Lal vs Union Of India And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 3458 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 35
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14032 of 2004
 

 
Petitioner :- Babu Lal
 
Respondent :- Union Of India And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Sudama Ram,Anand Kumar
 
Respondent Counsel :- Govind Saran,Amar Nath Ambasta,S.C.,S.R.Nigam
 

 
Hon'ble Satya Poot Mehrotra,J.

Hon'ble Het Singh Yadav,J.

     Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.

     The Writ Petition is being disposed of at this stage with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

     The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying for quashing the order dated 4.6.2003 ( Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition ), and the order dated 24.10.2003 ( Annexure No. 8 to the Writ Petition ) passed by the Central Administrativre Tribunal( In short " the  Tribunal" ).

     As per the case set-up by the petitioner , the petitioner was engaged in Northern Railways on 20.11.1970 on the post of Store Chaser on Rs. 5/- wages per day and was posted in Microwave Stores .The petitioner worked for sometime, however, his services were terminated by an oral order dated 28.2.1975. The petitioner , thereafter, filed a Suit being Civil Suit No. 335 of 1977 in the Court of Additional Munsif , Kanpur . However, the said Suit was dismissed on  technical grounds.

    The petitioner, thereafter, filed another Suit being Suit No. 788 of 1992. The said Suit was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 10 of 1992.

    By the order dated 4.12.1992, the Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid T.A. No. 10 of 1992. Copy of the said order dated 4.12.1992 has been filed as Annexure no.1 to the Writ Petition. The relevant portion of the said order dated 4.12.1992 is as under :-

"Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant sympathetically for re-employment and let it be done within a period of three months. We expect taking into the past event., the respondents will not hesitate in giving appointment to the applicant. It will be open for the respondents to give continuity  of previous working and in this behalf we make no observation. No order as to the costs."

     The petitioner, thereafter , filed a Contempt Petition being Contempt Petition No. 18 of 1994 before the Tribunal . While the Contempt Petition was pending before the Tribunal , the respondent no. 3 passed an order dated 18.5.1996 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for re-employment  made pursuant to the said order dated 4.12.1992 passed by the Tribunal in T. A. No. 10 of 1992. Copy of the said order dated 18.5.1996 has been filed as Annexure No. 2  to the Writ Petition. 

     The Tribunal , thereafter, by the order dated 7.8.1997 dismissed the aforesaid Contempt Petition No. 18 of 1994 on the ground that  the order had been complied with and satisfactory explanation had been given for the delay.

    The petitioner , thereafter, filed another  Original Application being Original Application  No. 1037 of 1998.

     By the order dated 4.6.2003 ( Annexure no. 6 to the Writ Petition ) , the aforesaid Original Application no.1037 of 1998, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed.

   The petitioner, thereupon, filed a Review Petition before the Tribunal which too was dismissed by the Tribunal by the order dated 24.10.2003 ( Annexure No. 8 to the Writ Petition ).

   The petitioner has, thereafter, filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above.

   We have heard Sri Sudama Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Amar Nath Ambaz, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3, and perused the record.   

    Relief was  sought by the petitioner in the aforesaid Original Application No. 1037 of 1998 for  quashing  the oral termination order, if any, passed by the respondents, and further for giving re-employment to the petitioner as  directed  by the Tribunal in  T.A. No. 10 of 1992.

     As regards the relief for quashing the oral order of termination , it is noteworthy that the  said grievance of the petitioner  was the subject -matter of Suit No. 335 of 1977.The said Suit was dismissed on 20.3.1979 on technical grounds. Thereafter, raising the same grievance, the petitioner filed another  Suit , namely, Suit no. 788 of 1992 which was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 10 of 1992. The said T. A. No. 10 of 1992 was disposed of by the Tribunal by the order dated 4.12.1992. The said order passed by the Tribunal dated 4.12.1992 became final between the parties. Therefore, the question of validity of oral termination order could not be agitated by the petitioner in his  aforesaid  second Original Application  namely, Original Application No. 1037 of 1998.

     As regards the relief sought by the petitioner for giving re-employment  in view of the order of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 10 of 1992, it  is noteworthy that the Tribunal by the order dated 4.12.1992, inter-alia, directed that the respondents would consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for re-employment . No direction for giving re-employment to the petitioner was passed by the Tribunal. 

    In compliance with the said order dated 4.12.1992, the question of re-employment of the petitioner was considered by the respondent no.3 by passing a detailed order dated 18.5.1996 ( Annexure no. 2 to the Writ Petition ) whereby  the claim of the petitioner for re-employment was rejected.

   Having perused the order dated 18.5.1996, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order dated 18.5.1996 passed by the respondent no.3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for re-employment. It is noteworthy that the said order dated 18.5.1996 was not challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal in its order dated 4.6.2003 has observed as under :-

   "  5.  I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant. However, I am not satisfied that at this stage applicant can be given any relief.The direction of this Tribunal contained in the order dated 4.12.1992 was only to consider the case of the applicant for re-employment sympathetically, which was done by the respondents and the case  of the applicant was rejected by a reasoned and detailed order dated 18.5.1996, which has not been challenged.

   6. In my opinion , applicant cannot agitate the same matter again by filing second O.A. Applicant filed contempt application agitating that compliance has not been done, which was also rejected. Thus, the order passed by this Tribunal attained finality and the applicant cannot be allowed to agitate the same matter again and again. The order dated 18.5.1996 has not been questioned. It may be noted here that the applicant has not worked after 28.2.1975 . About 28 years have passed ,after such a long time,  I do not find any good ground for interference . The O.A. has no merit and is accordingly dismissed." 

    We agree with the reasoning and  the conclusions  of the Tribunal as quoted above.

    In our view , the order of the Tribunal dated 4.6.2003 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. 

As regards the order dated 24.10.2003 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the  Review Petition filed by  the petitioner, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said order dated 24.10.2003.

In view of the above discussion, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed.

    The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

    However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 9.8.2012

aks