Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Bharati V Patel vs M/O Railways on 28 March, 2019
i G4 No. fOG/201 3 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL ORIGINAL APPLICATION No.109/2015 Date of Decision: 28.03.2019, CORAM: R. VLIA¥YKUMAR, MEMBER (A) m2 Ley a RN. SINGH, MEMBER (2 Smt. Bharati V. Patel, Dio Maganlal Makwana, Age 45 years, working as Private Secretary, Western Railway, Divisional Railway Managers Office, Ratlam Division, Ratlam. R/at 4/45, Abhilasha Bldg. Bellasis Bridge, Tardeo, Mumbai 400 034.
Smt. Amutha Mohan, D/o Mr. Samuel Paulraj, Age 45 years, working as Private Secretary -- I], Signal & Telecommunication Department, Western Railway Headquarter Office, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020.
Réat B-401, Swaran Hans Tower, 2™ Road, Sriprashtha, Nallasopara CW), Thane Dist. 401 203.
Smt. Poonam Pradhan, Dio Bharat Bhooshan, Age 55 years, working as Private Secretary ~ U Signal & Telecommunication Department, Western Railway Headquarter Office, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. R/at L-5/0, Laxmi Ramana CHS, Bangur Nagar, Goregaon (W), Mumbai 400 020, Shri Jayarajan VK. Son of C\V. Kunhikannan, Age 58 years, working as Private Secretary ~I], Electrical Department, Western Railway Headquarter Office, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020, Riat B-2/6, Nisare CHS Ltd., Sector 48-A, Nerul (W), Navi Mumbai 400 706.
Shri Prakash Mulchandani, Son of Mr. Narumal J. Mulchandani, Age 50 years, 'Signal & Telecommunication Department, ee Western Railway HO Office, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020, R/at 202, Roval Galaxy, Near Past Office, Goal Maidan, Ulhasnagar ~ 421 001.
2 O4 No. 10926156. Shri Premarajan M., Son of K.V. Krishnan " . Nair, Age 52 years, Private Secretary, Konkan Railway Corporation Lid, Belapur. Réat E-2/6, Nisarg CHS Lid. Sector 48-A Nerual (W), Navi Mumbai 400 706. .. Applicants (Advocate Shri Vishal Shirke, proxy counsel for Shri S.¥. Marne) VERSUS The Union of India, Through the General Manager, Western Railway Head Quarters Office, Churchgate, Mumbai 400 020. « Respondent (Advocate Shri VS. Masurkar) ; 'ORDER (Oral) 5 Per: R. Filavkumar, Member (A) © Heard the learned counsels for the
2. This Application has been filed on 13.02.2015 uncer Section Ls Of the BRAaministrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seexing g 4 the following reliefs;
"8.1) This Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to call for the records of the case fram the respondents and after examining the same quash and set aside the impugned show-cause notices dated 16.12.2014 in respect of each of the applicants.
&.b} This Hon'ble Tribunal may further be pleased to hold and declare that the promotions of the applicants to the post of Private Secretary Gril granted vide panel dated 14.07.2010 and promotion order dated 29.07.2010 are legal and valid and the respondents be restrained from disturbing the same, &e} Costs of the application be provided for.
orders, it was noted that ther 3 OA Ne. 10S2015 &.d} Any other and further order as this -- Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit in the nature and cirewmstances of the case be passed."
3. The Applicants have challenged a show- cause notice issued by the competent authority of the respondents namely General Manager (£) dated 16.12.2014 stating that the selection made for the post of §.8. Grade-Iil had to be reviewed to be in canformity with the Railway Board's orders on the selection procedure and upon reviewing the previous Were Errors o that affected the applicants by which their seniority and their inclusion in the panel could be affected including for reversion to their substantive grades. The. Applicants have filed representations ~- some of them feaiad L.12.2014 EJ.
within the time period up to 3 including in February 2015 and then, after filing these representations, they have approached this Tribune without awaiting orders of the competent authority.
4. From the very perusal of the imougned show-cause motice, it is evident that no hae ut os wD anal agecision Has. pean teken ny respondents which mey be conatrued as x 3 1 Od Neo. 109/208 "SS aa iB roel oS
2) fet CG © t o ct sn' m a ct tr c rh tt ry (B applicants ang they heave been given 15 days time from the date of issue of impugned show-cause notice to make their representations, if any. it 18 settled law that mere show-cause notice dees not give a cause of action unless the the same adversely affects the applicants. Howey in the present case, it is not disputed by the applicants that the show-
cause notice has been issued by the competent authority and it is alse not disputed that the applicants have been given reasonable time to make their representations.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any cause of action agitated that could maintain the present OA. However, "the learned counsel for the applicants submits wh aye ws DO oR ay aE % ee =e :
chat the applicants have approached this
-- A oy wd fad ~ Tribunal under the bene fide apprehension By ad aoe st Ne pe YY Pe det ps; 2 oe +e Yap that the show-cause notice is merely a prepared a revised penel and the same may be < a3 4 gyi wae coon ae ace t } 4 Legued ever without considering their © D VW 5 OA No. 109/2015 &. In view of the aforesaid, the OA is disposed of with directions LO the respondents te consider the representations of the applicants and decide the same within 4s Y "ty Four weeks of receipt of a certified copy o1 this order However, until the respondents teke a Final decision on the representations te of the applicants and orders are communicated ¢ to the applicants, the respondents shall not give effect to any order which may be * ia < 3. a we » oad <= < préetudicial LO the interest Of the rs nN Sine Vote (RN. Singh) | (R.Vijaykumar) Member (J) Membre? (A) a 'S aj AN "|