Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.233 of 2010 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11452 of 2005 ====================================================== 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Railway Board through its Chairman, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 3. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 4. The Deputy Director, Pay Commission-V- Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 5. The Financial Commissioner, Railways, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 6. The General Manager, East Railway, Calcutta. 7. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Calcutta. 8. The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar). 9. The Financial Advisor and Chief Accounts Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar). 10. The Chief Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Hajipur (Bihar). 11. The Divisional Manager, Danapur Division, East Central Railway, Danapur, District- Patna. 12. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Danapaur Division, East Central Railway, Danapur, District Patna. .... Respondents in CWJC No.11452 of 2005 .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Sudama Singh, son of late Tulsi Singh, resident of Railway Hunder Road, East Lohanipur, P.S. Kadamkuan, Town and District- Patna.
Legal Reasoning
2. Dindayal Pandit, son of Sri Ramchandra Pandit, resident of Village- Nathopur, P.S.- Parsa Bazar, P.O.- Kurthaul, District- Patna. 3(a) Silki Singh 3(b) Manisha Kumari 3(c) Survi Kumari All are daughters of late Nagendra Prasad Singh (original petitioner- respondent no.3), R/o Village- Chhoti Badalpur, P.O.- Khagaul, P.S.- Danapur, District- Patna. 3(d) Pramila Singh, W/o Sri Ajit Singh, R/o Mohalla- Mahabir Colony (Saichak), P.O. & P.S.- Beur, Anishabad, Patna-2. 3(e) Sharmila Singh, W/o Sri Jagat Pd. Singh, R/o Mohalla- Mahabir Colony (Saichak), P.O. & P.S.- Beur, Anisabad, Patna-2. 3(f) Kumari Purnima Singh, W/o Rakesh Kr. Singh, R/o Mohalla- Saristabad, Sri Ram Path, House No.A/6, P.O.- Anisabad, P.S.- Gardanibagh, Patna-2. 3(g) Tanuja Singh, W/o Manoj Kr. Singh, R/o Mohalla- Indra Nagar, P.O. & P.S.- Kankarbagh, Patna-20. 4. Birendra Kumar Yadav, son of Sri Jagdeo Prasad Yadav, resident of Mohalla- Khaje Kalan, Sabji Mandi, Patna City, P.S.- Khajekalan, District- Patna. 5. Madhur Kumar Rai, son of Sri Hulas Rai, resident of Village- Sahpur Diara, P.O. and P.S.- Sonepur, District- Saran (Chapra). 6. Brij Mohan Prasad Mahto, son of Sri Shiva Balak Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Nehru Tola, P.S.- Begampur, P.S.- Chowk, Patna City, District- Patna. ....Petitioners in CWJC No.11452 of 2005. .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate with For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Bijoy Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== Mr. Patanjali Rishi, Advocate Patna High Court C. REV. No.233 of 2010 (5) dt.03-04-2013 2 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 5 03-04-2013 Heard Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel in support of the application and Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi for the petitioner-respondents. This civil review application is directed against the judgment and order dated 9.4.2010 passed in CWJC No.11452 of 2005. Mr. Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-petitioners has submitted that the order impugned is reviewable on several counts. He submits that the counsel, who appeared on behalf of the Railways at the stage of writ proceedings, was never authorized by the Railways to appear. He submits that in absence of proper notice their stand could not be properly placed before the Division Bench at the stage of passing of the order impugned. The second ground raised by the learned senior counsel is that the reasons assigned by the Division Bench for arriving at the conclusion of a discriminatory treatment is not on correct appreciation of the facts and needs to be explained. A third issue regarding the employees being bound by a bipartite settlement between the employees and the establishment has also been raised. Mr. Shahi, learned senior counsel has appeared for the Patna High Court C. REV. No.233 of 2010 (5) dt.03-04-2013 3 petitioner-respondents and has submitted that the view taken by this Court in the judgment and order dated 9.4.2010 under challenge finds support in similar view expressed by the Ernakulam Bench of Kerala High Court on 27.3.2012 in W.P.(C) No.22276 of 2007 (Z) dismissing the writ petition filed by the Railways questioning similar relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. It is submitted that the order of the Kerala High Court was questioned by the Railways in S.L.P. and which has been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 25.2.2013 and the order of the Kerala High Court has been affirmed. He thus submits that the order requires no interference. We have heard the parties and perused the records. We are afraid to note that all the issues as raised by Mr. Sinha were raised and deliberated upon by the Division Bench at the stage of the writ proceedings. The Division Bench of this Court taking note of the agreement had proceeded to hold that the same cannot suffice for giving a discriminatory treatment to the employees. The Division Bench taking note of the fact that similarly placed employees had been granted monetary benefits with effect from 1.1.1996, had set aside the order passed by the Tribunal denying such benefits and direction were issued extending the benefit of pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1996 to the writ petitioners together with arrears of salary. Patna High Court C. REV. No.233 of 2010 (5) dt.03-04-2013 4 Apart from merits, another aspect which has drawn our notice is the order passed by the Supreme Court in the appeal preferred by the Railways questioning a similar order passed by the Ernakulam Bench of Kerala High Court extending similar benefits of pay-revision to the employees from the date of notification, i.e. 1.1.1996 together with arrears of salary. The Kerala High Court had dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Railways questioning an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench extending such benefits to the employees w.e.f. 1.1.1996 together with arrears. Considering the submissions of the parties in the backdrop of the eloquent circumstances it is manifest that the opinion drawn by the Division Bench in the judgment and order impugned finds affirmation in a similar matter under consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Jose Sebastian which was the subject matter of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C.C. No.1997 of 2013. For the reasons aforesaid we are not inclined nor persuaded to interfere with the judgment and order impugned. This civil review application is accordingly dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-