Shri. Suresh S/O. Vinayakrao ... vs The Central Administrative ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4792 Bom

                                                                       wp1497.16


                                            1




                                                                           
                                                   
                                                  
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
                            Writ Petition No. 1497 of 2016




                                          
                             
     Suresh son of Vinayakrao Waghchoure,
     aged about 60 years,
     occupation : Working under
                            
     DRM [P], Central Railway,
     Nagpur, resident of
     Dharamdeep, Indora, Nagpur.       .....                     Petitioner.
      

                                          Versus
   



     1.      The Central Administrative Tribunal,
             Bombay Bench, Gulestan
             Building No.6,
             3rd/4th floor, Dr. Ghamshyam Marg,





             [Prescot Road], Fort,
             Mumbai.

     2.      Union of India,
             through the General Manager,





             Central Railway,
             C.S.T. Mumbai-400 001.

     3.      Divisional Railway Manager,
             Central Railway, Nagpur Division,
             Nagpur.                                ....       Respondents.




    ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016                   ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 19:42:00 :::
                                                                           wp1497.16


                                            2




                                                                              
                                                      
                                  *****
     Mr. M.M. Sudame, Adv., for the petitioner.

     Mr. P.S. Lambat, Adv., for respondent nos. 2 and 3.




                                                     
                                           *****


                                   CORAM    :      B. P. DHARMADHIKARI




                                          
                                                   AND
                                                   A. S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

ig Date : 22nd August, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT [Per B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.]:

01. Considering the nature of controversy, matter is heard

finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith.

02. Learned Adv. Mr. Sudame submits that the representations

sent by the petitioner in pursuance of the policy decision RBE No.

78/2006 were addressed to various authorities, including the General

Manager. He contends that because lateron junior persons to the

petitioner were absorbed in equivalent or same grade, the petitioner

accordingly sought re-determination of his absorption. Incompetent

authority, namely Divisional Railway Manager [Personnel], decided it

and Central Administration Tribunal has overlooked this aspect. He

further states that in this situation, the impugned order is liable to be

wp1497.16

quashed and set aside and the matter needs to be placed back before

Central Administrative Tribunal for passing a reasoned proper order.

03. Learned Adv. Mr. Lambat states that a representation was

sent to the authority which has decided it and that authority has

correctly found that benefit of said RBE could not have been extended

to the petitioner, as he was not in same grade.

04. During hearing the Court was constrained to ask the

question as to how and why RBE No. 78/2006 was required to be

issued. Adv. Mr. Lambat, then to assist the Court, submitted that said

RBE is not applicable to the case of the petitioner and he should have

submitted a representation as per the communication dated 31st July,

2006 sent by the Ministry of Railways to General Manager [Personnel]

having RBE No. 104/2006. He also states that petitioner nowhere

relied upon the provisions of Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities

(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,

1995. He adds that, in fact, the grievance of the petitioner was time

barred.

05. In the light of the grievance as made in the petition, we find

that the Central Administrative Tribunal ought to have considered the

wp1497.16

provisions of Section 47 of above mentioned 1995 Act. The

respondents have very fairly placed RBE 104/2006 as Annexure-R-6

with the reply-affidavit before this Court.

06. In such a situation, when provisions of Section 47 of 1995

Act are in force, prior to issuance of BBE No. 104/2006 or RBE No.

78/2006, the respondents ought to have considered the representation

of the petitioner in the correct spirit and attempted to redress his

grievance if it was covered under Section 47 of that Act.

07. We find that the petitioner unfortunately did not make any

reference to said Section and relied upon RBE No. 78/2006. It appears

that he was not aware of RBE No. 104/2006.

08. Petitioner has superannuated in the year 2013.

09. In this situation, we do not observe anything on merits of

controversy. Interest of justice can be met with by granting the

petitioner leave to make a fresh representation in accordance with law

to competent authority within a period of four weeks from today. If

such representation is made, said authority shall consider it as per law

within next three months. It is clarified that such consideration shall

wp1497.16

be impartial and uninfluenced by the orders of Central Administrative

Tribunal dated 30th September, 2015 in Original Application No. 2081

of 2012.

10. With these directions, we dispose of the Writ Petition. No

costs.

               Judge                                                   Judge
                                    -0-0-0-0-
      


     |hedau|
   





                                   CERTIFICATE

I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.

Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 23rd Aug., 2016 Pvt. Secretary.

-0-0-0-0-