Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ashutosh Sharma & Ors vs Central Admi. Tribunal Jodhpur & Ors on 13 April, 2018

Bench: Chief Justice, Vinit Kumar Mathur

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4919 / 2012


1.   Ashutosh Sharma S/o Shri Ram Nath Sharma, by caste
     Brahmin, aged 52 years resident of Railway Colony, Abu
     Road and at present working as Station Master, Railway
     Station, Western Railway, Abu Road.
2.   Dharmendra Ojha S/o Shri R.C. Ojha by caste Brahmin,
     resident of Railway Colony, Madar and at present working as
     Station Master, Railway Station, Madar.
3.   Tej Kumar Siddhu S/o Shri V.K.Siddhu by caste Siddhu,
     resident of Railway Colony, Abu Road and at present working
     as Station Master, Railway Station, Western Railway, Abu
     Road.
                                                     ----Petitioners
                                 Versus


1.   The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur
     through its Registrar.
2.   The Union of India, through General Manager (P), Western
     Railway, Headquarter Office, Church Gate, Mumbai.
3.   The Divisional Railway Manager, Ajmer Division, Western
     Railway, Ajmer.
4.   Shri Surgyan Singh Meena S/o Shri Ranjeet Mal Meena,
     resident of Railway Colony, Kanakpura, Jaipur at present
     working as Station Superintendent, Railway Station,
     Kanakpura, Jaipur.
                                                   ----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s)    :   Mr.Arpit Bhoot
For Respondent(s) :      Mr.Kamal Dave
_____________________________________________________
                    HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

Order 13/04/2018

1. The verbose impugned order does not focus either on the (2 of 3) [CW-4919/2012] issue which arose for consideration before the Tribunal nor does it capture the rival view points and the result is non focused discussion of the controversy.

2. The origin of the dispute pertains to the implementation of the recommendation of the IVth Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.1986. Posts in the pre-revised scale of ₹425-640 and ₹455- 700 were placed in the revised scale of ₹1400-2300.

3. Traffic apprentices who were selected prior to the year 1986 in the scale of ₹455-700 raised an issue of seniority vis-a-vis those who were in the pay scale ₹425-640. The issue had to be decided by the Tribunal with respect to the principle of law followed by the department while fixing the inter-se seniority. The impugned decision nowhere brings to fore that the Tribunal was seized of the said fact.

4. Lest parties are prejudiced by any observation made by us, learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the writ petition may be disposed of setting aside the impugned order dated 23.09.2011 and O.A.No.23/1997 filed by the writ petitioners be restored for adjudication afresh before the Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

5. Ordered accordingly.

6. Order dated 23.09.2011 is set aside. O.A.No.23/1997 filed by the writ petitioners is restored before the Jodhpur bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal for decision afresh on merits. The Tribunal would not pass an essay type order. The pleadings of the parties would be noted. The legal issue which arises for consideration shall be brought out and in the light of the pleadings (3 of 3) [CW-4919/2012] and the documents filed in support of the pleadings the decision would be pronounced. Needful shall be done within six weeks of the receipt of the present order passed by the Division Bench. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Kshama Dixit 10