Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rajesh Kumar vs M/O Railways on 28 July, 2017
(OA No.060/00846/2017)
(Rajesh Kumar & Ors, Vs. UOT & Ors.)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRTIVE TRIBUNAL iv
CHANDIGARH BENCH
M.A.No.060/01117/2017 &
OA No.060/00846/ 2017
CORAM:
hd
Lea}
ee)
10.
ii.
12.
Rajesh Kumar S/o Sh. Bansi Lal, R/o VPO: Jamalour
Sheikhan, Teh-Tonana, Distt. Fatehabad
Usman Gani S/o Sh. Fatookhan
R/o VPO-Gangiasar, Teh & Distt. Jhun Jhunu (Raj}
Sanjeet S/o Sh, Naphe Singh
R/o Voo-Matindu, Reh Kharkhoda, Distt. Sonipat (HR)
Ram Kumar S/o Sh. Rati Ram
R/o VPO-Laloda, Teh-Tohana, Distt. Fathabad
Najar Singh S/o Sh. Arjan Singh
R/o VPO- Adakwas, Teh-Munak, Distt. sangrur (P5)
Sita Ram Gurjar S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Gurjar
R/o VPO: Basana, Teh-Jamvaramghar, Distt. Jaipur (Raj)
Ranjeet Kumar S/o Sh. Naresh Pandit
R/o VPO: Maksubpur, Teh- Khizarsaray, Distt. Gaya
Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Sadhu Ram
R/o VPQ: Kanheti, Teh-Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani
Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Satbir
R/o VPQ:Baroll, Teh & Distt. Jind {HR}
suvinder Singh S/o Sh. Sultan Singh
R/o VPO:Baniya Khera, Teh-Safidon, Jind
Tejpaul Singh Sfo Sh. Kuldeep Singh
R/o VPO-Dhani Dulat, Distt & Teh-Fatehahad (HR)
Ramesh Kumar S/o Sh. Hans Raj, R/o VPOvaml Pur
Sheikhana, Teh. Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad (HR)
HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (J)
"Y
"fe
v
Date of decision: 28.7.2017.
Aged-37 yrs.
Aged- 50 yrs.
Aged- 24yrs.
Aged-53 yrs.
Aged-54 yrs,
Aged-28 yrs.
Aged-25 yrs.
Aged-52 y¥s.
Aged-25 yrs.
Aged-23 yrs.
Aged-37 yrs.
Aged-30 yrs.
{OA No.060/00846/2017)
(Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOT & Ors.) "?)
13. | Manphool Singh 5/o Sh. Chottu Ram, R/o VPO-Jamalpur Aged-51 yrs.
Sheikhana , Teh-Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad (HR}
14. Vijay Kumar S/o Sh. Bansi Ram, R/o VPO-Jamalpur Aged-35 yrs.
Sheikhan, Teh-Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad (HR}
15. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Balbir singh, R/o Ward No. 18 Aged-24 yrs.
Opposite Hospital, Teh-Tohana, Distt. Fatehabad
16. Baru Ram S/o Sh. Krishana, R/o Ward No. 14 Aged-52 yrs.
Gilan Wali Dhani, Bhuna Raod, Teh-Tohana, Distt.Fatehabad
17, Amit Kumar S/o Sh. Yashpal Singh, R/o VPO-Mavikalan Aged-29 yrs,
Near AMI Nagar Sarai, Teh-Baraut, Distt. Baghput {UP}
18. Nathoo Ram S/o Sh. Banwari Lal Aged-56 yrs.
R/o VPO-Khokha, Teh & Distt. Hisar {HR}
19. Sandeep Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish, R/o VPO-Khanda Kheri Aged-25 yrs.
Teh-Bass Hansi, Distt. Hisar {HR}
20. Pardeep Kumar S/o Sh. Chhaju Ram. R/o VPO-Dhani Aged-33 yrs.
Manekhan, Teh-Hansi, Distt. Hisar (HR)
Applicants
(BY ADVOCATE: MR. M.K.Gaur for Mr. U. Srivastava).
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manger, Northern Railway, Baroda
House, New Delhi,
2. The Divisional Railway Manager Ambala (N.R.), Ambala Cantt. Ambala.
3. The Divisional Engineer, O/o The Divisional Railway Manager,
Ambala (N.R.), Ambala Cantt., Ambala.
Respondents
ORDER (oral)
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik. Member (J}:
(OA No.060/00846/2017) { (Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. UOT & Ors.) "| M.A. No.060/001117/2017 has been filed under Section 25 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 6 of C.A.T, (Procedure), Rules, 1987, seeking permission to allow the applicants to file joint petition. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed.
2. The applicants have approached this Tribunal seeking following reiief(s):-
"8(). Directing the respondent No.2, the campetent authority to cansider and finalize the case of the applicants for granting the overtime allowances for the working period of the applicants beyond 8 hours per day as the respondents Drepared the 12 hours duty roaster of the applicants, which is pending with them, as the issue herein has already been settled by the Hon'ble Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in OA, No.107/2009 decided on 21.01.2011, upheld by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.7164/11, OA No.3054/12 decided on 27.08.2013 and O.A. No.3549/2015 decided on 19.08.2016 and thereafter, (il). Directing the respondents to extend the benefit of overtime allowance from the date of their posting/entitlement accordingly with all other consequential benefits .@, the arrears of differences and interest etc",
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicants submitted that " before approaching this Court the applicants have got served a legal notice dated 22.9,016 requesting therein to grant them benefit of over time allowance based upon the decision dated 21.01.2011 of the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in O.A, No.107/2009, upheld by the Hon'ble Dethi High Court in WP (C) No.7164/11, OA No.3054/12 decided on 27.08.2013 and O.A. No.3549/2015 decided on 19.08.2016, Therefore, he made a statement at the Bar that applicants will be satisfied if direction is issued to the respondents to decide their pending legal notice/representation by pessing a reasoned and speaking order in ad time bound manner.
(OA No.060/00846/2017) a (Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. UO] & Ors.) ~
4. In view of the limited prayer of the applicants for disposal of their legal notice in a time bound manner and the order which I Propose to pass, there is no requirement to issue notice to the respondents and wait for their reply. Hence, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to take a view on aforesaid legal notice dated 22.9.2016 of the applicants by passing a reasoned and speaking order by taking into account the aforesaid judgments retied upon by the applicants within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.
Order so passed be duly communicated to the applicants, 5, Cisposal of this O.A. in above terms may not be construed as an expression of any opinion on the merits of the case, cee (SANJEEV KAUSHIK), JUDICIAL MEMBER.
DATED:- 28.7.2017.
KKS,