Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Union Of India & Ors vs Santosh Deb & Ors on 23 November, 2016
Author: Nishita Mhatre
Bench: Nishita Mhatre
1
23.11.16
Item No.16
Ct. No.17
AB
W.P.C.T. 234 of 2016
In the matter of : Union of India & Ors.
- versus -
Santosh Deb & Ors.
Mr. Anirban Dutta
..... for the Petitioners
Mr. Kamalendu Ghose
Mr. Syamal Kr. Maitra
Mr. Raja Ghosh
.......... For the Respondents
This is a blatant attempt on the part of the Eastern Railway to flout the order of this Court passed in W.P.C.T. 6 of 2015 (Union of India and Ors Vs. Kamdeo Mondal & Ors.) on 29th January, 2015. The Division Bench of this Court upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 382 of 2014. The Tribunal's finding was that the period of work of an employee during his temporary status should be included for pensionary benefits.
The respondent preferred O.A. 350/01472/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal and sought the same reliefs, placing reliance upon a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. - Vs.- Sarju. In the absence of any specific denial of the fact that the applicants therein were identically circumstanced to 'Sarju', the learned Tribunal disposed of the original application on 2 21st January, 2016 with a direction to the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the decision in the case of Sarju (Supra) and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within three months. It was also directed that in case the respondents were found entitled identical benefits be conferred upon them.
Although the decision in the original application is dated 21st January, 2016 the present writ petition has been filed only on 4th October, 2016. The only explanation submitted by the learned Railway advocate is that time was consumed for "seeking legal option". This is the negligent and careless manner in which this petition has been filed. Obviously the petitioners meant "legal opinion and not legal option". Be that as it may this is hardly an explanation for the inordinate delay of more than one year in preferring the writ petition. Therefore, we would have been justified in dismissing the petition on this ground alone.
However, even on merits the petitioners have no case at all. The Tribunal has merely directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondents in the light of the judgement in Sarju (Supra) and if it was found that the respondents were entitled, the same relief should be given to them. The submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the observation made by the Supreme Court in Union of India and others -Vs.-Sarju. This submission is not available to the petitioners when the decision of this Court in Kamdeo Mondal's case arrived at 3 upon considering the judgement delivered in Sarju (Supra) has not been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The petition is dismissed in the facts and circumstances of this case. We impose costs of `10,000/- to be distributed amongst the respondents. The cost shall be paid within four weeks from today.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities as expeditiously as possible.
(Nishita Mhatre,J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)