Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
S.K.Dutta Aged About 45 Years Son Of Sri ... vs Union Of India Through on 19 April, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal , Lucknow Bench, Lucknow Original Application No.387/03 This the 19th day of April, 2011.
Honble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Singh, Member (J) Honble Sri S.P.Singh, Member (A)
1. S.K.Dutta aged about 45 years son of Sri K.P. Dutta, R/o II-173A Sleeper Ground, Alambagh, Lucknow.
2. Avtar Singh aged about 40 years son of Sri Nattha Singh H.N. 554 Ka/III Arjun Nagar Gate No.4, Tehri Pulia, Alambagh, Lucknow.
Applicants By Advocate: Sri A.Moin Versus Union of India through:-
1. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer, C&W Shop, Northern Railway, Alambagh, Lucknow.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer, Northern Railway, New Delhi.
Respondents By Advocate: Sri Praveen Kumar for Sri Anil Srivastava for respondents No. 1 and 2 Sri B.B. Tripathi for Sri M.K.Singh for respondents No.3 ORDER (Dictated in Open Court) By Honble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Singh, Member (J) Applicants No. 1 and 2 have filed this O.A. with a prayer to quash the offer of appointment dated 27.8.2001 to the post of Gangman issued by respondent No.3 contained in Annexure No.A-1 and for directing the respondents to allow the applicants to join on the post of Khalasis in the C&W Shop Alambagh, Lucknow with all consequential benefits.
2. The respondents have filed reply denying the claim of the applicants, stating that they are not entitled to the relief.
3. We have heard both the parties at length and gone through the material on record.
4. At the outset, the background facts are required to be mentioned. Both the applicants were included in the panel dated 22.5.1984 on the post of Casual Khalasis on daily wages. However, this panel was cancelled vide order dated 3.1.1985. Feeling aggrieved, some of the persons have preferred writ petition No. 590/1985 , whereas rest of them preferred O.A. No. 500/1986 before this Tribunal. Subsequently, the aforesaid writ petitions were transferred to this Tribunal and both the matters were clubbed together.
5. Finally, the matters were dismissed on 24.11.1987.Agaisnt the dismissal order, an SLP No. 1213-14/1987 was filed, which was disposed of with some observation. Thereafter, a notification dated 8.9.1989 was issued for drawing up the panel of 120 persons for the post of Khalasi in C&W Workshop, Almbagh, Lucknow. But some of the persons approached the Tribunal by filing an O.A.No.69/90 against their exclusion from the panel. This O.A. was dismissed. Aggrieved by this dismissal, Civil Appeal No. 865-66/1992 was filed before the Honble Apex Court which was disposed of on 14.2.1992 with a direction to include the names of the applicants also in the fresh panel. Subsequently, some of the similarly situated persons also approached the Tribunal by way of filing O.A. No. 391/1992, 145/95 and 20 other such OAs for extending of the aforesaid benefits of Apex Court and the same were also allowed by order dated 15.2.2000.
6. In the panel in which the applicants were included , it was decided to appoint them at Delhi Division as there were number of vacant posts of Gangman in Delhi Division. Accordingly, all the incumbents were offered appointment vide order dated 27.8.2001 but they did not join. Instead they filed an O.A., questioning the validity and correctness of the offered post of Gangman and also appointment in Delhi Division with a prayer to strike down the same and provide appointment to the applicants on the post of Khalasis in the C&W workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow only, with all consequential benefits. All such OAs were decided by a common order dated 15.2.2000 . Operative portion of the common judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
In the result, in the conspectus of facts and circumstances , the applications are disposed of with the following directions:-
The respondents shall issue orders of appointment to all the applicants in these case who have passed their claim on the post of khalasis, without subjecting them to any further process of selection, in their turn on the basis of their seniority position in the panel dated 22.5.1984 towards existing vacancies and arising vacancies as expeditiously as possible considering the fact that their claims have been hanging fire for a very long time, observing the pre-appointment formalities as per rules. No order as to costs.
7. Some of the incumbents filed CCP No. 35/2000 in O>A. No. 145/1985 and also execution petition which all ended in dismissal. The relevant portion of dismissal order is as under:-
order dated 15.2.2000 passed in batch of OAs, including O.A. No. 145/1995 did not provide that the applicants be accommodated in C&W workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow. Therefore, as regards the claim of the applicants that they should have been accommodated in the C&W Workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow., we are of the view that the claim of the applicants has to be rejected. The contention raised by the applicants that they are prepared to remain out of job till such time as they can be accommodated and posted in C&W workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow also has no merit and therefore cannot be accepted. In so far as the direction contained in the order dated 15.2.2000 passed in a batch of OAs including OA No. 145/1995 are concerned, we are of the view that the directions have been compiled with , thus the CCP therefore, fails.
8. From the above, it came out that the respondent authorities offered appointment on the post of Gangman to the applicants in Delhi Division vide aforesaid impugned order dated 27.8.2001 but the applicant did not join, instead they filed the present O.A.. At this stage, it may be mentioned that one of the applicant namely, Avtar Singh has disassociated himself and has withdrawn from this O.A.
9. The respondents have taken main objection on the ground that the applicants are trying to enforce the judgment dated 15.2.2000 by way of present O.A., like execution petition and as such O.A. is not maintainable. It is further said on their behalf that the claim made in the present O.A. is similar to the claim made in the earlier OAs and as such the present O.A. is barred by res-judicata and also on the ground of limitation.
9. In view of the rival contentions, the main point for consideration before us is whether the applicant is entitled to appointment on the said post of Khalasi in C&W Alambagh Workshop, Lucknow and also whether offer of appointment/order dated 27.8.2001 requires any correction or amendment as claimed by the applicant.
10. Concededly, the applicant is claiming the relief as indicated in the judgment dated 15.2.2000, mentioned hereinabove. There is also no quarrel on the point that the applicant No.1 also belongs to said batch matter vide judgment and order dated 15.2.2000. At the cost of repetition, it may be mentioned that the concerned applicants had earlier filed contempt petition CCP No. 35/2000 etc. but the same was dismissed on 19.8.2002 as already mentioned. It goes without saying that if the applicant wants execution of benefits of orders in batch matters in O.A. No. 391/92 dated 15.2.2000, he is justified to seek benefit by way of filing Execution Petition or CCP, as such strictly speaking, there is no justifiable ground to file separate OA. for the same relief.
11. Coming to the offer of appointment dated 27.8.2001, under which the respondent authorities has offered appointment to the applicants on the post of Gangman in Delhi Division on the ground that there are no vacancies in C&W Workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow the applicant has not placed any material on record to substantiate that at present vacancies are available at C&W Workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow on the post of Khalasis. Only on account of non-availability of such post, the authorities have provided alternative appointment in the cadre of Gangman in Delhi Division, and therefore, finding fault with the authorities does not appear to be justified. We also do not find any good ground to strike down the post of Gangman and also to place of proposed posting in Delhi Division. Earlier, also , in similar mattes, this Tribunal has decided OA. 516/03 on 15.4.2010 observing therein the same thing. However, it was also added that it is upto the applicant to accept or reject such offer of appointment made by the respondents( Annexure C-1 to the Affidavit dated 23.12.2010 filed in support of application M.P. No. 100/11 for dismissal of OA).
12. In the conspectus of the above, we do not have any reason to arrive at a different conclusion in this matter. Finally, therefore, we do not find any justifiable ground for interference either in respect of offer of appointment/order dated 27.8.2001 or to issue direction to the respondents for appointment of the applicant no.1 on the post of Khalasis in C&W Workshop, Alambagh, Lucknow.
13. It is pointed out that the applicant No.2 has withdrawn from this O.A. on the ground that in furtherance of offer of appointment/order dated 27.8.2001, he intends to join at Delhi itself on the post of Gangman. Learned counsel for applicant no.1 has an anxiety that this offer of appointment/order dated 27.8.2001 may not have gone in hibernation. But the learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 stated at bar that the order dated 27.8.2001 still stands good so far as the applicant No.1 is concerned. Nevertheless, we observe that in view of the entire facts and circumstances, as discussed hereinabove, the aforesaid order dated 17.4.2001 shall be treated as still alive so far applicant No.1 is concerned and if the applicant No.1 so desires, he may accept the offer of appointment and may join on the post of Gangman at Delhi Division subject to observing the pre-appointment formalities as per rules as observed in earlier order dated 15.2.2000.
14. Accordingly, with aforesaid observation, this O.A. is disposed of finally. No order as to costs.
(S.P.Singh ) (Justice Alok Kumar Singh) Member (A) Member (J) HLS/-