Rajasthan High Court
R. P. Meena S/O Shri S.L. Meena vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2022
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11325/2022
R. P. Meena S/o Shri S.l. Meena, Aged About 53 Years, Resident
Of A-21, Ashish Vihar, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan) 302017
Presently Compulsorily Retired From IRTS/DY CSO/Traffic, North
Western Railway, Jaipur (Raj.) (IRTS) GR 'A' Service) Mobile:-
9509296965.
----Petitioner/Applicant
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001.
2. V.k. Yadav, Ex Chairman Railway Board, Ministry Of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi -110001.
Through Secretary Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001.
3. S.k. Mishra, Ex Secretary Railway Board, Ministry Of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001.
Through Secretary Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi - 110001.
4. H. Maharana JS (E), Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan,
Raisina Road, New Delhi -110001. Through Secretary
Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina Road, New
Delhi - 110001.
5. Pramila H. Bhargav Ex JS (C), Now PCPO Northern
Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001.
6. Sushil Kumar Singh Ex Us Estt. (S), Now Deputy
Secretary/ G, Ministry Of Railways, Rail Bhawan, Raisina
Road, New Delhi - 110001.
7. General Manager (P), North Western Railway, Hq Office,
(Downloaded on 21/10/2022 at 09:40:30 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-11325/2022]
Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur-302017
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner-in-person.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Judgment / Order
17/10/2022
Heard on admission.
The petitioner-in-person argued before the court assailing
the correctness and validity of the order passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Tribunal') on 12.07.2022 by which his application for
grant of interim relief has been rejected.
The petitioner-in-person would submit that the order of
compulsory retirement of the petitioner is per se illegal, arbitrary
and does not stand the scrutiny of law. In his submission, his
service records were excellent and there was absolutely no
material available with the authority to compulsorily retire him.
The petitioner-in-person has taken the court to various records of
service including his annual appraisal reports of various years
including those of the recent past.
We find that the learned Tribunal has rejected the application
for grant of interim relief by recording a reason that directing
reinstatement of the petitioner in service by way of interim relief
would amount to allowing the original application at the interim
stage.
Apart from anything else, in our considered opinion, the
reason which has prevailed with the Tribunal to reject the
(3 of 3) [CW-11325/2022]
application for interim relief cannot be said to be contrary to the
settled principles of law in the matter of grant of interim relief.
Admittedly, the petitioner stands compulsorily retired in the public
interest and it is not a case of penalty as such.
Whether service records of the petitioner on a holistic
consideration justifies the order of compulsory retirement,
essentially would be a matter of consideration at the stage of final
hearing and not at interim stage. Therefore, in our opinion, the
Tribunal has not committed any jurisdictional error warranting
interference of the High Court in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner-in-person would argue that despite repeated
opportunities, respondents have not filed any reply before the
Tribunal.
Considering the totality of circumstances, though, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order rejecting application for interim
relief, we consider it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose
off the original application of the petitioner within a period of six
months. We make it clear that if the department does not file
reply despite repeated opportunities, the Tribunal may proceed to
draw adverse inference and in addition, it may also direct the
production of the original records at the time of hearing to satisfy
itself with regard to the correctness and validity of the order of
compulsory retirement.
Subject to the above observations, the petition is accordingly
dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
Sanjay Kumawat-9
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
