In view of decision of the apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar v. Union of India, AIR
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C) No.12523 of 2014 Rankanath Prusty & Ors. ….. General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar & Ors. Vs. ….. Petitioners Mr. Tripathy on behalf of Mr. G.A.R. Dora, Sr. Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India CORAM: DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY ORDER 01.03.2024 Order No. 18 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Tripathy on behalf of Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India appearing for the opposite party-East Coast Railway. 3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 12.02.2014 passed in O.A. No.789 of 2011 under Annexure-1, by which the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, did not exercise the discretionary power to condone the delay and allow the petitioners to prosecute the aforesaid O.A. jointly and dismissed the said O.A. 4. Mr. Tripathy on behalf of Mr. G.A.R. Dora, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners vehemently contended that earlier the petitioners had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) Nos. 5476 of 2007 and 5477 of 2007 without approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and this Page 1 of 6 Court, vide judgment dated 15.02.2011 disposed of the said writ petitions with the following observations: “7. In the circumstances, by applying the ratio decided in K.I. Shephard Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 and A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah Vrs. K. Bajjanna, 2002(1) SLR 521, this Court holds that the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5476 of 2007, except petitioner nos.5 and 7, are entitled to get the same benefits as have been granted to the similarly circumstanced persons in O.A. Nos.365 and 366 of 1987 and O.A. No.155 of 1995. In view of decision of the apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1125, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5477 of 2007 cannot approach this Court directly and they should, in the first instance, approach the Tribunal”. Therefore, the petitioner approached the Tribunal for just and proper adjudication of the case, but the Tribunal, without application of its mind, passed the impugned order dated 12.02.2014 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 5. Mr. Gyanalok Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel, Govt. of India appearing for the opposite party-East Coast Railway contended that since the petitioners had approached the Tribunal at a belated stage, the Tribunal did not entertain the O.A. and, as such, the Tribunal has not committed any error so as to interference of this Court at this stage. Consequentially, he seeks
Decision
for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioners were selected through regular recruitment process by the Railway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneswar and appointed as Casual Labourers in Class-IV posts. After serving for a considerable length of time, they were retrenched by the Chairman, Railway Recruitment Board (RRB), vide order dated 04.02.1986. By order dated 02.04.1986, the Chairman, RRB Page 2 of 6 forwarded the names of the petitioners indicating the number of working days to the Divisional Railway Manager (D.R.M.), Khurda (opposite party no.2) for their future absorption. But, without considering the case of the petitioners, freshers were recruited through regular selection. Some similarly circumstanced persons filed O.A. Nos. 365 & 366 of 1987 before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal, vide order dated 19.06.1989, upheld their termination. However, in Review Application Nos. 19 and 20 of 1989 filed against the said order dated 19.06.1989, the Tribunal, vide judgment dated 20.03.1990 directed the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment as and when posts would be available. By virtue of the said direction, those persons have already got appointment in regular Group-D service. Subsequently, some other similarly situated persons filed O.A. No. 155 of 1995 to get the benefits of the order passed by the Tribunal in the Review Applications, as mentioned above. The Tribunal, by order dated 20.07.1998, held that the documents of the appointment, retrenchment, etc. were genuine and the applicants therein had a right for consideration and preference for engagement as casual labourers over freshers. 7. The opposite parties challenged the order dated 20.07.1998 before this Court in O.J.C. No.16887 of 1998 and this Court upheld the said order passed by the Tribunal. The petitioners, being similarly situated persons, were waiting for the result and after the order of this Court, they made personal approach, but in vein. The petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5476 of 2007 filed O.A. No.92 of 2001, but the Tribunal dismissed the same overlooking the fact that they are similarly placed with the applicants in O.A Page 3 of 6 Nos.365 and 366 of 1987 and O.A. No. 155 of 1995 and that some of the juniors to the petitioners have already been regularized. 8. The opposite parties filed a detailed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.5476 of 2007 stating therein that the petitioners were never engaged as casual labour by the Railway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneswar. The purported order of retrenchment dated 04.02.1986 was not issued by opposite party no.3. The order dated 02.04.1986 is not an order for engagement and the same was not issued by opposite party no.3. Both the orders are fake and spurious documents. Their further plea is that since the petitioners were never engaged as casual labour, the question of maintaining seniority and giving them temporary status does not arise at all, and that the allegation of appointment of freshers ignoring claims of the petitioners is far from truth. It is further pleaded that the writ petition is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed in limine. 9. This Court, applying the ratio decided in K.I. Shephard v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 686 and A.P.S.R.T.C., Cuddapah v. K. Bajjanna, 2002 (1) SLR 521, vide judgment dated 15.02.2011 held that the the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5476 of 2007, except petitioner nos.5 and 7, are entitled to get the same benefits as have been granted to the similarly circumstanced persons in O.A. Nos.365 and 366 of 1987 and O.A. No.155 of 1995. In view of decision of the apex Court in the case of L. Chandrakumar V. Union of India, AIR 1999 SC 1125, the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.5477 of 2007 cannot approach this Court directly and they should, in the first instance, approach the Tribunal. Page 4 of 6 10. In compliance of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioners approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.789 of 2011 and the Tribunal, after due adjudication, vide order dated 12.02.2014 dismissed the said O.A. on the ground of delayed approach to the Tribunal. But fact remains, if by virtue of order of this Court, the petitioners approached the Tribunal, that cannot be construed as belated approach to the Tribunal. More so, this Court vide order dated 21.04.2022 called upon the learned counsel for the petitioners to satisfy this Court why vide order dated 15.02.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.5476 of 2007 and W.P.(C) No.5477 of 2007, this Court excluded the names of Gunanidhi Biswal and Niamudin Khan from the rest of the petitioners and refused to grant benefit to them, though they were petitioner no.7 and petitioner no.5 respectively in the said writ petition, even if the name of Gunanidhi Biswal was indicated at Sl. No.2 of the list dated 25.02.1986 of Railway Recruitment Board, Bhubaneswar and secondly, he will also explain why the petitioners had approached the Tribunal at a belated stage by filing M.A. No.32 of 2012. 11. Pursuant to said order dated 21.04.2022, learned counsel for the petitioners filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for delayed approach the Tribunal. Since by virtue of order of this Court, the petitioners have approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.789 of 2011, the Tribunal should have considered the said O.A. in proper perspective and should not have rejected the Miscellaneous Application on the ground of delayed approach after 25 years. 12. In any case, since the O.A. and M.A. have been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of delay, this Court, without Page 5 of 6 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, sets aside the order dated 12.02.2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.789 of 2011 and remits the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 12. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE Alok (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Designation: A.R-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: orissa high court Date: 04-Mar-2024 12:25:44 Page 6 of 6