Jharkhand High Court
Ambika Prasad Aged About 71 Years Son Of ... vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 8 January, 2024
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6504 of 2023
------
Ambika Prasad aged about 71 years son of Late Sivmohan Suka,
resident of village and P.O. Arai, P.O. and P.S. Parchana, District
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh. .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, South Eastern Railway,
P.O. and P.S. Garden Reach, Kolkata-700043.
2. The Chief Commercial Officer, South Eastern Railway, 14 Strand
Road, Kokata-700001.
3. The Chief Catering Manager, South Eastern Railway, 14 Strand
Road, Kokata-700001.
4. The Divisional Railway Manager(P), South Eastern Railway,
Chakradharpur Division, Chakradharpur, District West Singhbhum
.... .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Saibal Mitra, Advocate
For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, Addl. S.G.I.
Mrs. Chandana Kumar, AC to A.S.G.I.
------
04/Dated: 08.01.2024
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, directed against the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit
Court at Ranchi in O.A. No.160 of 2009, whereby and whereunder,
the relief sought for quashing the order dated 19.12.2008 passed by
the Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, Chakradharpur, by which, the
relief sought for by the writ petitioner praying a direction upon the
respondents to give the benefits of regularization to the applicant
with effect from the initial order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, has been
rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ
petition, required to be enumerated are as under:-
3. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the applicant/petitioner
was engaged as Commissioned Vendors in the Catering Division of
the South Eastern Railway, at Tatanagar under the Chakradharpur
Division in the year, 1970 and since then he has been working as
Commissioned Vendor/Bearer of different fixed amount of
remuneration in the forms of commission.
4. In the year, 1995, South Eastern Railway Congress along with
a group of Commissioned Vendors/Bearers working in the South
Eastern Railway had agitated the matter before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.196 of 1995, in which, interim order was
passed on 28.08.1995 directing to make payment of equal salary to
those of the regular Vendors/Bearers w.e.f. August, 1995. Further,
the said order was modified vide order dated 09.10.1995 giving
direction that the said mode of payment of salary shall be applicable
to others also provided they are actually working as Commissioned
Vendors/Bearers. Thereafter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order
dated 03.12.1997 has disposed of the aforesaid writ petition directing
the respondents to provide the Vendors/Bearers the benefits of 5th
Pay Commission with Dearness Allowance, House Rent and other
admissible allowances until they are absorbed in permanent
vacancies. There were several vacancies exist but respondents
intentionally delay the matter and ultimately after about five years of
the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents have
prepared a panel and the petitioners were posted in different Group-
D posts of South Eastern Railway in Chakradharpur Division. The
petitioners have submitted an application before the respondents for
giving the benefits from 1995 following the aforesaid Supreme Court
order vide letter dated 21.06.2002 but the same has not been
considered.
5. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred one original
application being O.A. No.136 of 2007 seeking therein the direction
to give benefits of regularization to the applicant with effect from the
initial order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (C)
No.196/1995 in the matter of South Eastern Railway Congress &
Ors. Vrs. The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors., on 03.12.1997.
6. The aforesaid original application was disposed of vide order
dated 24th June, 2008 at the admission stage with a direction upon
the respondents to consider the grievance of the writ petitioners in
the light of the judgment dated 03.12.1997 passed in Writ Petition
(C) No.196/1995.
7. The concerned competent authority has considered the case of
the writ petitioners while passing the order dated 19.12.2008 in the
light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(C) No.196/1995, but, the prayer for counting the services from the
date of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court has been negated,
thereafter, the original application being O.A. No.160 of 2009 has
been filed, but the same has also been rejected, against which, the
present writ petition.
8. Mr. Saibal Mitra, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has
submitted by referring to Annexure-4, [W.P.(S) No.1583 of 2012]
which is the order passed in favour of the writ petitioners, who are
the applicants in original application no.160 of 2009 (Ranchi) along
with the present writ petitioner, namely, Ambika Prasad.
9. Submission has been made that this Court has passed the
order allowing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1583 of 2012 on
24.04.2023 by quashing the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court at
Ranchi in O.A. No.160 of 2009, as such, the instant writ petition may
also be allowed in terms of the aforesaid order, since the same issue
has already been decided which has been set at rest by this Court as
per Annexure-4 appended to the writ petition.
10. Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Addl. S.G.I. appearing for the
respondent-UOI after going through the Annexure-4 and taking the
party position as referred at Annxure-6, as also the prayer made in
Annexure-6 (Original Application No.160 of 2009) has not
controverted the argument advanced on behalf of the writ petitioner
so far as it relates to similar issue having been dealt with by this
Court vide order dated 24.04.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No.1583 of
2012.
11. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court
at Ranchi dated 11.01.2011 in O.A. No.160 of 2009, has been
quashed and set aside, so far as it relates to writ petitioners in
W.P.(S) No.1583 of 2012, namely, Lalmani Tiwari, Ram Bachan
Prasad, Gangadhar Poddar, Shankar Sahu, Bihari Lal and Ram Deo
Singh.
12. The writ petitioner, herein, is also the applicant no.1 in O.A.
No.160 of 2009 along with the writ petitioners, namely, Lalmani
Tiwari, Ram Bachan Prasad, Gangadhar Poddar, Shankar Sahu,
Bihari Lal and Ram Deo Singh in W.P.(S) No.1583 of 2012,
therefore, the instant writ petition also deserves to be allowed.
13. In view thereof, the order dated 11.01.2011 passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna, Circuit Court at
Ranchi dated 11.01.2011 in O.A. No.160 of 2009 is hereby quashed
and set aside.
14. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Rohit/-N.A.F.R.
