Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Rajeev Mishra vs Union Of India Through General Manager on 15 January, 2009
OPEN COURT CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH : ALLAHABAD ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.72 of 2006 Allahabad, this the 15th day of January, 2009. Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Gaur, Member-J Hon'ble Mr. S.N. Shukla, Member-A Rajeev Mishra, Son of Shri P.N. Mishra, Resident of 1094/191/23 Saraswati Marg, Rajruppur, District Allahabad. ...Applicant. (By Advocates: Shri V.S. Sinha Shri A.K. Dave) Versus 1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway Allahabad. 2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad. ...Respondents. (By Advocate: Shri S.K. Anwar) O R D E R
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. A.K. Gaur, Member-J :
We have heard S/Shri V.S. Sinha and A.K. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.K. Anwar, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant invited our attention to the judgment rendered by this Tribunal in OA No.408 of 2004. OA No.408 of 2004 was filed against the recovery and withdrawal of 30% running allowance working on statutory post. The said OA was allowed by this Tribunal in part and the impugned order dated 26.2.2004 was quashed and set-aside. This Tribunal remitted back the case to the D.R.M. for decision afresh after proper self-directions to the relevant statutory provisions, as referred therein. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal, the respondents have repeated the same old order and directed that since the applicant applied as a fresh candidate through RRB after compliance of due formality for the post of Inquiry-cum-Reservation, the benefit of past services rendered by him as Assistant Driver cannot be taken as continuity in service, as such his pay again re-fixed vide order dated 4.7.2005. Learned counsel for the applicant would further contend that impugned order is bad in the eyes of law. The observation of the respondents that the applicant was not entitled for 30% of running allowance while fixing his pay is not in accordance with the provisions of rule. A question was asked from the leaned counsel for the applicant that has he filed any representation against the said order, learned counsel for the applicant stated that applicant has not preferred any representation in this regard.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant also invited out attention to the order passed by Jodhpur Bench and Delhi Bench of the Tribunal, where in the similar and identical facts and circumstances the running allowance was granted to them.
4. In view of the above submissions, we hereby quashed the impugned order dated 4.7.2005 (Annexure-A-14) and direct the applicant to file a fresh representation before the competent authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order taking all the grounds in his representation, and if such representation is received, by the respondents, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order taking into account the grievances raised by the applicant, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.
5. With the above directions, O.A. stands disposed of. No order as to costs.
Member-A Member-J
RKM/
1