Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Indian Railway S And T Maintaners Union vs M/O Railways on 18 August, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.2744/2017
New Delhi this the 18th day of August, 2017
HON'BLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A)
1. Indian Railways S&T Maintainers' Union
Through its General Secretary
Alok Chandra Prakash
S/o Shri Om Prakash
Aged about 39 years
Group: C
Department: Railway
Designation: Technician-Signal
Nature of grievance: not fixing their hours of work
and period of rest
Its Central Office:
House No.16, Kotia Vihar
Phase-1, Nr. Bijender Farm House
Nangloi Najafgarh Road,
Nangloi, Delhi-110041
2. Raghwendra Narayan
S/o Shri Umesh Prasad Singh
Aged about 37 years,
Group: C
Department: Railway
Designation: SM-II
Nature of grievance: not fixing their hours of work
and period of rest
R/o House-P, Block-144
Sector-IV, Pushp Vihar,
M.B. Road, New Delhi-17.
3. Navin Kumar
S/o Late Birendra Prasad
Aged about 31 years
Group: C
Department: Railway
Designation: Technician-I (Signal/MIK)
Nature of grievance: not fixing their hours of work
and period of rest
R/o. Village Bhatu Bigha
P.O. & P.S. Ekangea Sarai
Distt. Nalanda (Bihar)
PIN-801301
4. Mehboob
S/o Sh. Umarbhai Sandhi
Aged about 51 years
Group: C
Department: Railway
Designation: ESM/I
Nature of grievance: not fixing their hours of work
and period of rest
R/o. 95, Nutan Nagar,
Beside Mansoor Society
Padhriya, Anand (East)-388001
Gujarat.
5. Ajay Shankar
S/o Late Shri Chandra Shekhar Prasad
Aged about 31 years
Group: C
Department: Railway
Designation: Technician-Signal
Nature of grievance: not fixing their hours of work
and period of rest
R/o. Rly. Qtr. No. 160/A,
Kalibari Colony, Jhaljhalia,
Maida, West Bengal-732102.
-Applicants
(By Advocate: Mrs. Rani Chhabra )
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Railways,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Railway Board
Through its Chairmen,
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Director General (S&T),
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
-Respondents
ORDER (ORAL)
Inter alia, it is contended that despite repeated representations, the respondents have neither adhered to the guidelines nor redressed the grievances of the applicants as per rules.
2. It is stated by the learned counsel for the applicant that the respondents may be issued a time bound direction to decide the applicants representations. According to the nature of this direction, there is no necessity to issue notice to the respondents. At this juncture, the OA is disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.3 to consider the representations of the applicants dated 01.07.2017, 13.10.2015, 22.06.2016, 04.11.2015, 03.12.2015, 27.09.2016 & 28.10.2016 and decide the same within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicants may also, if so desire, submit a supplementary representation to the respondents within 15 days from today. Such consideration shall be without any prejudice to any contention on limitation, delay or latches.
3. Needless to mention here that this direction may not be construed as my opinion on the merits of this matter.
(Uday Kumar Varma) Member (A) /mk/