Sau.Shubhangi W/O Surendra ... vs Union Of India & 8 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 2939 Bom

                                                                           wp.3246.00

                                                  1



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
                                       ...

WRIT PETITION NO. 3246 /2000

1) Sau. Shubhangi w/o Surendra Kulkarni Aged major, occu: Telephone Operator C. Rly. R/o Mrugnayani Apartments Flat No. B-203,Vyankatesh Nagar, Khamla.

2) Ku,Meena d/o Maniram Ukey Aged major, occu: Telephone Operator R/Rly. R/o Old Jaripatka, Near Kabrasthan Central Railway Bridge, Nagpur.

3) Sau.Usha w/o Jagdish Pande Aged major, occu: Telephone Operator C.Rly, 55 Datta Niwas Rameshwari, Nagpur. ..PETITIONERS

v e r s u s

1) Union of India Through General manger, Central Railway, Mumbai -CST.

2)      Divisional Railway Manager 
        Central  Railway, Nagpur. 

3)      Shri Sattyanarayan Murthy

Aged major, occu: Senior Telephone Operator C/o Chief Telephone Inspector, Wardha.

4) Shri Prakash s/o Shioram Aged major occu: Telephone Operator C/o Chief Telecom Inspector,(M) Nagpur.

5) Shri Maroti s/o Shrawan Aged major, occu: Telephone operator working as Stores Clerk at Ajani

wp.3246.00

Office of the SSE /Tel. Maint C.Rly, Ajni, Nagpur.

6)        Shri  Tularam Dhondrao 
          (Deleted  vide Court's order
          dated 17.02.2006)

7)        Shri Suresh Shamrao  

Aged major, occu: Senior Telephone Operator c/o Chief Telecom Inspector Central Railway, Nagpur.

8) Shri B. Chandrashekhar (Deleted vide Corut's order dated 16.6.2003)

9) Vice-Chairman Central Administrative Tribunal Gulestan Building No.6 Prescot Road, Fort, Mumbai. ..RESPONDENTS ...........................................................................................................................

None for the petitioners Dr. R.S.Sundaram, Adv.for petitioner nos.1 and 2 ............................................................................................................................

                                                     CORAM:    R.K.DESHPANDE &
                                                                    MRS . SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ
                                                                                          . 
                                                     DATED :       8  June,   2017
                                                                     th

ORAL JUDGMENT: (PER R.K.DESHPANDE, J.)

Original Application No. 678/1990 filed by all the three petitioners

was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 16.09.1994. The

operative part of the said order reads as under :-

"11. In the result, the following direction is given :

Casual Telephone Operators including the applicants who have

wp.3246.00

appeared for the selection held in pursuance of the memorandum, dated 8.6.90 should be considered for absorption as regular Telephone Operators in the grade of Rs. 950-1500 (RSRP) against the direct recruitment quota of five posts out of eleven posts created in terms of memorandum at Annexure-20 provided :

(i) they fulfill the minimum educational qualification for direct recruitment of Telephone Operators and

(ii) passed the departmental examination held in pursuance of the memorandum dated 8.6.90.

The upper age limit shall be relaxed to the extent of their service as casual Telephone Operators by the competent authority. Their seniority in the Telephone Operators grade of Rs. 950-1500 shall be fro the date they are regularly absorbed in pursuance of this order."

2. It is not in dispute that the aforesaid order has been fully complied

with. The petitioners, however, preferred Original Application Nos.

926/1998, 218/1999 before the Central Administrative Tribunal

claiming seniority from the year 1990. The Central Administrative

Tribunal has dealt with this aspect of the matter in paragraph 6 of its

judgment, which is reproduced below:

"6. The learned counsel for the applicant argued about the

wp.3246.00

Railway Rules, about applicants appearing in 1990 examination and therefore the applicants should get seniority from 1990. When the applicants got absorption in their favour only in pursuance of the judgment of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 678/90, that judgment itself says that the applicants are entitled to seniority from the date they are regularly absorbed, that judgment has become final. Therefore the applicants cannot go behind that judgment and cannot ask any other relief contrary to the directions in O.A.678/90. That judgment is binding on both the parties. As per judgment, seniority counts only from regularisation. Therefore present OAs filed by the applicants seeking seniority over private respondents respondents from 1990 are not maintainable."

3. We do not find any fault with the view taken by the Central

Administrative Tribunal. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

                         JUDGE                                    JUDGE

sahare