Heera Mani v. Union of India and two others, by that order, learned Tribunal has observed as
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:116783-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5009 of 2011 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru The G.M. Northern Railway And Others Respondent :- Heera Mani And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Saran,A.K. Gaur,Devendra Tripathi,Rajesh Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C.,Anand Kumar,Sudama Ram Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J. Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
Legal Reasoning
1. Heard Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the Union of India. 2. List revised. None appeared for the contesting parties- respondent. Learned Standing Counsel for the State is present. 3. Present writ petition has been filed to assail the order dated 8 December 2010, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, in miscellaneous execution proceedings, Application No. 15 of 2008, in Original Application No. 159 of 2003, Heera Mani v. Union of India and two others, by that order, learned Tribunal has observed as below :- "For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that objection of the respondents regarding maintainability of the execution is uncalled for and it must be deprecated. It is not expected from the functionary of the State to raise such an objection against the legislation and against the established law. There is a specific provision for moving an application for execution and regarding execution, the procedure as has been laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, is applicable. Moreover, it cannot be presumed that the Order of the Tribunal stand complied with by passing a speaking order. This contention of the respondents was most unjustified and false that there had been no vacancy in the Unit where the applicant worked. Information was furnished by the respondents under Right to Information Act that '70' fresh faces were appointed as Group 'D' / substitute in Allahabad Division. But, for the reasons best known to the respondents, the applicant was not re-engaged and thereafter regularized. As the Order has not been complied with, hence the execution shall proceed, and process be issued for execution of the Order in the manner, as prayed in clause (ii) of the Execution Application. Steps be taken within a week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." 4.Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the above order has been passed in execution proceedings arising from the final order of the Tribunal dated 17.10.2005. Paragraph No. 12 of the said order is quoted below :-
Decision
"12. In view of the above, the order dated 15th October, 2001 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-engage the applicant as casual labourer in the next available occasion when work is available and enter his name in the Live Casual Labour Register on re-engagement. He be further screened in accordance with law, with his seniority duly fixed for the purpose of regularization. Since the re-engagement of the applicant depends upon availability of work, the applicant may keep in touch with the authorities at regular intervals and the respondents should also inform him the approximate time by which the applicant would be reengaged. Attempts be made to reengage the applicant within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order." 5. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, once, the order dated 17.10.2005 had been complied to the extent it was required inasmuch as the names of the claimant had been reentered in the Live Casual Labour Register in order of seniority, nothing remained to be delivered to the claimant by way of relief. 6. It that circumstances, the earlier Contempt Application filed by the claimant-respondent came to be dismissed vide order dated 08.07.2008 on the following observation made by the Tribunal :- "We hold that order in question of the Tribunal has been complied by issuing order dated 1.7.2008 and hence no further action is necessary. Shri A.K. Pandey, Advocate, however, referred to paragraph 11 of the last /3rd short counter affidavit, which reads:-" 7. It that light, the further observation of the Tribunal made in the impugned order stating that the execution may proceed with respect to clause (ii) of the execution application, is described as without jurisdiction and beyond the scope of the proceedings. 8. Clause (ii) of the execution application is quoted below : "(ii) to attach immovable property belonging to the said respondent No.2 and 3 viz Divisional Control Office situated in the premises of the Divisional Railway Manager's Office, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad or Divisional Cash Office situate in Allahabad Jn. Building, Allahabad (which is within the district of Allahabad) for the stipulated period fixed by the Hon'ble Tribunal and." 9. Though it is true that the contempt petition was dismissed with the above noted observation, that order does not contain any recital or consideration of the claim made in the execution case namely that the claimant was not entitled to be called for work in order of seniority or exigency of work. Neither that issue had been dealt with by the Tribunal in the contempt proceedings nor there is any material before us on which we may reach a firm conclusion that no work exigency arose as may have required the claimant respondent to be called for work. 10. The defence being set up that no work exigency arose in the SSE/P-Way/Allahabad Unit-35 and that such work exigency arose at other units is a factual issue. Appropriately, the same had to be examined in the execution proceedings itself. Even as to delay, the issue is factual and would remain open to the Tribunal to consider afresh. At the same time, these two issues have yet not been examined by the Tribunal. Prematurely, coercive measures have been adopted. Thus without drawing any conclusion as to fact, we dispose of the writ petition with liberty to both the parties to raise the respective pleas, before the Tribunal. 11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.12.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order, in accordance with law, after hearing both the sides. Till decision is made on those issues, no coercive measures may be adopted against the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed. Order Date :- 24.5.2023 Akram Digitally signed by :- MOHD AKRAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad