Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India And Others vs K. Subramaniam Patnaik And Others on 29 February, 2012
Author: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
Bench: Subhro Kamal Mukherjee
1
S/L. 39.
February29, 2012.
High Court at Calcutta
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
W.P.C.T. No. 304 of 2011
Union of India and others
...Petitioners
Versus
K. Subramaniam Patnaik and others
...Respondents.
Mr. Swapan Banerjee Mr. Saptarshi Roy.
... for the petitioners.
Mr. Chiradeep Sinha.
...for the respondents.
This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against order dated March 18, 2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, in Original Application No. 1239 of 2005.
The applicants were 79 (seventy-nine) in number. They were all school teachers working in the schools under the South Eastern Railway.
2The grievance of these applicants, in substance, is that the South Eastern Railway is not fixing total number of holidays available in a year properly. It was contended that leave entitlement for all the teachers working in the schools under the Railways irrespective of the zone/State has to be the same.
The railway authorities contested the claim by stating that the holidays of the said applicants were fixed at par with the school teachers of the schools affiliated with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education.
Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned advocate appearing in support of this writ petition, argues that the railway has taken a policy decision that it is not feasible to fix uniform ceiling of holidays for all the railway school teachers across Indian railways.
We have considered the detailed order passed by the tribunal. We agree with the findings that leave entitlement for all the teachers in the railway schools irrespective of the State/zone has to be the same. The total number should have no relationship with the State in which the schools are located. The South Eastern Railway should distribute the total number of the holidays keeping in mind the state-wise requirements.
The tribunal directed the Chief Personnel Officer of the South Eastern Railway to make a reference to the Railway Board, through the General Manager of the railways, to fix the distribution of the holidays, if 3 necessary, state-wise so as to reflect the local priorities, but the total number of holidays available in a year should be fixed for all.
Mr. Banerjee files a copy of the letter dated July 12, 2011 of the Joint Director of Establishment (welfare), Railway Board informing the General Manager (P), South Eastern Railway, Kolkata, that it was not feasible to fix uniform ceiling of holidays for all the local school teachers across India as directed by the tribunal. Accordingly, the Railway Board has decided to approach this Court with a writ petition.
Let a copy of the letter be kept with the record.
We do not think that the tribunal committed any error of jurisdiction or in law in holding that the teachers working in the schools under Railways are entitled to same holidays irrespective of the zone/State.
However, the tribunal took into consideration the local priorities and directed the authorities to fix the distribution of holidays, if necessary, state-wise.
We do not think, therefore, that there is any necessity of interference with the order of the tribunal.
The application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is, therefore, rejected.
We make no order as to costs.
4Let xerox plain copy of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned advocates for the parties on usual undertakings.
(Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) (Nishita Mhatre, J.)