Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sarwar Ali vs M/O Railways on 21 October, 2021
1
Item No. 12 O.A. No. 330/2012
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench: New Delhi
O.A. No. 330/2012
This the 21st day of October, 2021
Through Video Conferencing
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd.Jamshed, Member (A)
Mr. Sarwar Ali
Chief Controller Train
Railways, Agra, U.P.
... Applicant
(By Advocate: None)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Operating Manager
Head Quarter Office
Allahabad, U.P.
3. The General Manager
(North Central) Railway
Head Quarter Office,
Allahabad, U.P.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: None)
2
Item No. 12 O.A. No. 330/2012
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Ms. Manjula Das, Chairman The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief(s):
"(a) Quash para 203.5 of Indian Railway Employees Manual Vol. I on the basis of which impugned inter se seniority list dated 14.07.2011, was prepared. Wherein name of the applicant was not included at the appropriate place.
(b) Set aside the order no.162/2011, dated 05.10.2011 passed by General Manager Personnel, Head Quarter Office Allahabad, where of Mr. S.K. Shrivastav, AOM/PLG/ALD
(c) Set aside the order no. 797-E dated 12.09.2011, passed by General Manager Personnel, Head Quarter Office Allahabad, where of Mr. S.K. Shrivastav, AOM/PLG/ALD, wherein, process for the promotion from Group C to Group B has been initiated by the respondent without taken into consideration the order dated 18.07.2011, passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi."
2. This is an old matter pertaining to the year 2012, and the applicant has already retired from service. We are inclined to dispose of the matter, as this Tribunal is set up for speedy disposal of the service matters of the Government employees. However, due to absence of learned counsel for the parties and since no application for adjournment has 3 Item No. 12 O.A. No. 330/2012 been moved by the applicant, we perused the pleadings on record.
3. Respondents had filed counter affidavit way back in July, 2012. It is averred in para 2 of the counter affidavit that the O.A. is hit by principle of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The applicant has earlier filed an O.A. bearing No.723/2008 challenging the same issue of seniority. That O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal on 05.12.2008, and further confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.10011/2009 vide order dated 18.07.2011. After the decision of the Hon'ble High Court, the Respondent Department preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The applicant is not permitted under the law to file successive O.As challenging the same issue and, accordingly, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. No rejoinder is filed by the applicant, denying the averments made in the counter affidavit.
5. We have also perused the judgment passed in O.A. No.723/2008, wherein similar prayer was made and after confirmation by the Hon'ble High Court, the issue reached upto to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, on the principle of res judicata and Section 11 of the CPC, the applicant 4 Item No. 12 O.A. No. 330/2012 cannot be permitted to file successive litigation on the same cause of action.
6. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the O.A. is hit by principle of res judicata and, accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd.Jamshed) (Manjula Das)
Member (A) Chairman
/vinita/jyoti/