Shri Satish D. Bhosale v. Shri Ramesh E. Thorat

Shri Satish D. Bhosale ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.608 OF 2011 Union of India, through G.M., Central Railway and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Ramesh E. Thorat ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2011 Union of India, through G.M., Central Railway and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Manik B. Jagdale and ors. ...Respondents 2 WP607/11 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.663 OF 2011 Union of India, through G.M., Central Railway and others ...Petitioners v/s Shri Appasaheb S. Bansode ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.664 OF 2011 Union of India, through G.M., Central Railway and anr. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Raju A. Surwade ...Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.665 OF 2011 Union of India, through G.M., Central Railway and anr. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Ramprasad Jagannathram ...Respondent 3 WITH WP607/11 WRIT PETITION NO.666 OF 2011 Union of India, through G.M., Central Railway and ors. ...Petitioners v/s Shri Timlu Mariappa ...Respondent Mr Suresh Kumar i/b Mr T.J. Pandian for Petitioners. Mr Sandeep N. Marne for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND K.K. TATED JJ. DATE : 17TH FEBRUARY 2011. P.C. :- 1] A common order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai is impugned in all these petitions. By the order impugned in these petitions, the CAT has directed constitution of a Committee and that Committee to consider the cases of the petitioners, who were actually engaged by the Railway, for their absorption in regular service. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners makes 4 WP607/11 a grievance about constitution of the Committee. In our opinion, if there is any practical difficulty in constituting Committee as directed by the CAT, the petitioners should approach the CAT pointing out the difficulty. The CAT is bound to consider genuine difficulties and make suitable modification in the constitution of the Committee. So far as the aspect of consideration of petitioners before the CAT for absorption is concerned, the Committee has to consider the cases of petitioners before it in accordance with law, including the judgments of the Supreme Court on the subject. If any circulars issued by the Railway Board or other authorities are not in consonance with the judgments of the Supreme Court either in the case of State of Karnataka v/s Umadevi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 or in the case of Pinaki Chatterjee and others v/s Union of India and others, reported in (2009) 5 SCC 193 or other relevant judgments, obviously the Committee cannot follow those circulars. In short, the Committee will have to consider the cases of petitioners in accordance with law. The order of the CAT cannot be 5 WP607/11 read to mean that the CAT has directed consideration of cases of petitioners before the CAT for absorption contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. The order of the CAT has to be read to mean that the cases have to be considered in accordance with law including the judgments of the Supreme Court. In this view of the matter therefore, in our opinion, there is no room to interfere with the order impugned in these petitions. Petitions are disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE K.K. TATED )