Radheshyam Sitaram Thakur vs Union Of India, Thr. Central Manager, ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 22111 Bom

Bombay High Court

Radheshyam Sitaram Thakur vs Union Of India, Thr. Central Manager, ... on 1 August, 2024

Author: Nitin W. Sambre

Bench: Nitin W. Sambre

                              1                             920-wp 3946.2024.odt


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
              WRIT PETITION NO. 3946 OF 2024
       ( Shri Radheshyam Sitaram Thakur vs. Union of India and another )

Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions                Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.

         Ms.Padma Chandekar, Advocate for the petitioner.
         Mr.Sahil Mate, Advocate h/f Mr.N.S.Deshpande,                 DSGI     for
         respondent No.1.

         CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : AUGUST 01, 2024

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.

2) It is the claim of the petitioner that he has worked intermittently as a 'Season Travelling Waterman' during the period from 22/01/1985 to 10/07/1989. According to him, he was working continuously at Railway Claims Tribunal w.e.f. 16/11/1989 against a sanctioned post of 'Peon' upto 22/10/2002, whereafter he joined on the post of 'Gang-Man' by an independent appointment order.

3) The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's service should have been calculated from the date of entry i.e. 16/11/1989 when he was posted as a 'Peon' with Railway Claims Tribunal. It is further claimed that the continuity of service is warranted in view of the Order of Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.2067/2020 decided on 21/02/2024 in the matter of Prakash Ramdas Mendhe vs. Union of India and others, which is based on the judgment of the Apex Court.

2 920-wp 3946.2024.odt

4) Ms.Chandekar, learned Counsel for the petitioner would urge that non-consideration of the services of the petitioner from 16/11/1989 to the date of permanent appointment i.e. 22/10/2002, has come to the knowledge of the petitioner only after the date of superannuation and, therefore, the claim was lodged forthwith.

5) Based on above, it is claimed by the petitioner that the cause of action ought to have been considered from the date of superannuation and not from the date the continuity of service is sought.

6) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 18/09/2024.

7) Mr.Sahil Mate, learned Counsel waives service of notice for respondent No.1.

( ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. ) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. )

KOLHE

Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/08/2024 19:32:44