Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
M/O Railways vs Chada Prakash on 8 October, 2020
1 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH: HYDERABAD
Review Application No. 21/009/2020
in
Original Application No.912 of 2018
Order of Order: 08. 10.2020
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (A)
1. Union of India, Represented by its
General Manager, South Central Railway,
Rail Nilayam, SECUNDERABAD
2. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,
S. C. Railway, SECUNDERABAD Division,
Sanchalan Bhavan, SECUNDERABAD, TS
... Review Applicants/ Respondents in OA
(By Advocate: Mrs. Vijaya Sagi, SC for Rlys)
And
1. Chada Prakash, S/o. Sri Chada Satyanarayana Rao, aged 66 years,
Retired Chief Enquiry & Reservation Supervisor,
Group C - Central Government Employee,
South Central Railway, Secunderabad Division,
H. No. 3-57, Narasimha Reddy Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
2. A. S. R. Murthy, S/o. Sri A. V. Rao, Aged 64 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 39, MYE Villas, FCI Godowns Road,
Mallapur, HYDERABAD - 500 76, TS
3. A. Venkata Reddy, S/o. Sri A. D. Reddy, aged 82 years,
Retired Guard, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 25-11-225, Bapuji Nagar,
Hanumakonda, KAZIPET - 500 003, TS
4. Atahulla Sharif, S/o. Sri Ahmed Shareef, aged 73 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., Secunderabad Division,
H. No. 74, Pension Lane, New Bowenpally,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 011, TS
5. A. S. R. Manikyam, S/o. Sri S. Muthu, aged 77 years,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-5-273, Vishnupuri, Hanumakonda,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
2 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
6. Antaiah Butchaiah, S/o. Sri Butchaiah, aged 69 years,
Retired Carpenter, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 7-4-68/1, Kottagudi, VIKARABAD, TS
7. B. Amrutham, S/o. Sri B. Mallaiah, aged 72 years,
Retired Technician, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 25-5-149, Vishnupuri, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
8. B. Padma Rao, S/o. Sri B. Moses, aged 73 years,
Retired TTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 1-2-110, Rahmath Nagar, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
9. B. Sammaiah Kanakaiah, S/o. Sri Kanakaiah, aged 76 years,
Retired Technician, S.C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 25-4-308/1, Vishnupuri, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
10.Balappa Bitchappa, S/o. Sri Bitchappa, aged 67 years,
Retired Gangmate, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
Vill: TUMKUNTA, Post: BURDIPAD,
ZAHIRABAD - 502 220, TS
11.B. Uppalaiah, S/o. Sri Iylaiah, aged 72 years,
Retired Tech - I, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 2-497, Ambedkar Street,
Madikonda, KAZIPET - 506 001, TS
12.B. V. Hari Gopal, S/o. Sri B. V. Mamana Rao, Aged 65 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 1-7/4, Temple Alwal, Bolaram,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 010, TS
13.C. C. Samuel, S/o. Sri C. V. Charles, aged 72 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division
H. No. 12-11-848, Boudha Nagar,
Warasiguda, SECUNDERABAD - 500 061, TS
14.D. Nanda Kumar, S/o. Sri S. Dayanandam,
Retired Enquiry Cum Reservation Supervisor,
S. C. Rly., Secunderabad Division,
H. No. 4-4-824, Kandaswamy Bagh,
Sultan Bazar, Koti, HYDERABAD - 500 095, TS
15.D. Ramnarayan, S/o. Sri D. V. Swamy, aged 72 years,
Retired Guard, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 2-10-443/4, Kanakadurga Colony,
Waddepally, Hanumakonda, WARANGAL - 506 370, TS
16.D. Veeraswamy, S/o. Sri Ramaiah, aged 64 years,
Retired Sr. Trackman, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 1-87/7, Ambedkar Street,
MADIKONDA RURAL - 506 142, TS
3 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
17.G. Sivarami Reddy, S/o. Sri G. P. R. Reddy, aged 67 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 3-121, Narasimha Reddy Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
18.G. V. Bhaskara Rao, S/o. Sri G. V. S. Rao, aged 71 years,
Retired EC & RS, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
SC Division, H. No. 36, Jawahar Rail Colony,
Sikh Road, SECUNDERABAD - 500 009, TS
19.G. Rama Swamy, S/o. Sri Narayan, aged 84 years,
Retired Driver, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 25-10-196/1, Bapuji Nagar,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
20.G. Desa Dasu, S/o. Sri Chakra Pani, aged 75 years,
Retired Tech - II, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 25-4-213, Vishnupuri, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
21.G. Ramaiah, S/o. Sri Chandraiah, aged 67 years,
Retired Technician, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-8-468/1, DSL Colony,
Bapuji Colony, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
22.G. Komaraiah, S/o. Sri Eraiah, aged 73 years,
Retired R. R. Bearer, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 5-60, Pochammagudi,
Cheruvukatta, MADIKONDA RURAL - 506142, TS
23.G. Venkataiah, S/o. Sri Lingaiah, aged 64 years,
Retired Sr. Black Smith, S. C. Rly., SC Division
ADDALPUR Village, REGONDI Post,
Yalal Mandal, RR. District, TS
24.Hatcha Somla, S/o. Sri Somla, aged 63 years,
Retired Sr. Trackman, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 4-1-61/2, Subhash Nagar Colony,
VIKARABAD - 501 101, TS
25.I. M. Basha, S/o. Sri R. Md. Ishaq, aged 73 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 6-6-439/2, Gandhi Nagar,
Kavadiguda, SECUNDERABAD - 500 080, TS
26.I. Devdas, S/o. Sri David, aged 71 years,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-4-9, Rahmath Nagar,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
27.I. V. Ranganatha Rao, S/o. Sri I. V. S. Rao, aged 72 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 202, Concrete Harmony,
4 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
Road No. 5, Habsiguda, HYDERABAD, TS
28.Jampaiah, S/o. Sri Komaraiah, aged 67 years,
Retired Station Porter, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 5-21-8-8 A, Vinayaka Nagar,
MADIKONDA RURAL - 506 142, TS
29.J. Cheeralu Mallaiah, S/o. Sri Mallaiah, aged 71 years,
Retired Keyman, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 1-1-1540/1, Venkatadri Nagar,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
30.J. Janaki Ramulu, S/o. Sri Butchanna, aged 64 years,
Retired KH Helper, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 3-43/1/1, Near: Akshaya Foundation School,
Nallagandla, LINGAMPALLY - 500 019, TS
31. J. L. B. Laxman, S/o. Sri J. L. Narsaiah, aged 73 years,
Retired TTE, S. C. Rly., SC Division, H. No. 12-1-991,
Near Mazid, North Lallaguda,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 017, TS
32.Kattaiah Odaiah, S/o. Sri Odaiah, aged 63 years,
Retired Track Maintainer, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 1-27, Bhathipalle, Hanumakonda,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
33.K. Srinivasa, S/o. Sri K. Rajaiah, aged 64 years,
Retired Cabin Man, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 3-42/27 A, Tulja Bhavani Nilayam,
Nallagandla, LINGAMPALLY - 500 019, TS
34.K. Srinivas, S/o. Sri Krishna Bhatta, aged 62 years,
Retired TTI, S. C. Rly., Secunderabad Division,
H. No. 12-10-416/413,
Warasiguda, SECUNDERABAD - 500 361, TS
35.K. V. Subbaiah, S/o. Sri K. N. Murthy, aged 71 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 20-3/1, Near Water Tank, Goutam Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
36.K. Gnanendraji, S/o. Sri Megh Raj, aged 77 years,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Rly, SC Division
H. No. 12-11-192/3, Bapan Basthi,
Namalgundu, SECUNDERABAD, TS
37.K. C. Gopinath Rao, S/o. Sri K. C. Ramdas, aged 64 years,
Retired Chief Booking Supervisor, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
Flat No: 3, 1st Floor, Santa Apts., Jyothi Nagar,
North Lalaguda, SECUNDERABAD - 500 017, TS.
5 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
38.K. Addaiah, S/o. Sri K. Chinna Ramiah, aged 65 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 20-554, E. K. Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
39.K. Kasper Raju, S/o. Sri K. Gnanaiah, aged 63 years,
Retired CCI, S. C. Rly., SC Division
H. No.Unit No.1201, Tower - 14, 12thFloor,
13th Level New Hitech City Rly, Station,
Serilingampally, HYDERABAD, TS
40.K. Venkateswarulu, S/o. Sri Venkata Krishna, aged 63 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 1-10-133, Ashok Nagar,
HYDERABAD - 500 020, TS
41.K. S. R. Sastry, S/o. Sri K. Siva Rama Sastry, aged 70 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 10-5-776, 6th Lane, Tukaram Gate,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 017, TS
42.Kapa Arun Kumar, S/o. Sri K. K. Nagaiah, aged 64 years,
Retired Chief Booking Supervisor, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 18/333/1, Mallikarjuna Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
43.Lakshminarayana Rao, S/o. Sri K. S. Rao, aged 64 years,
Retired C.B.S.R, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 4-9-77/S-14, HMT Nagar,Nacharam,
HYDERABAD - 500 056, TS
44.M. Narasaiah, S/o. Sri Mallaiah, aged 67 years,
Retired C.T.I., S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 10-96/3/30-402, P.V.N. Coloney,
New Mirjalaguda, HYDERABAD 500 047, TS
45.M. Yadagiri, S/o. Sri Komaraiah, aged 67 years,
Retired C.T.I., S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 228/11, New Mirjalaguda,
HYDERABAD 500 047, TS
46.M. Ramchander, S/o. Sri Venkataiah, aged 70 years,
Retired Guard, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 1-83/8 A, Madikonda (Rural),
MADIKONDA - 506 142, TS
47.Md. Yakub Ali, S/o. Sri Md. Afzal, aged 68 years,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Rly., Secunderabad Division,
H. No. 1-2-301, Rahamath Nagar, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
48.Mohd. Yousuf, S/o. Sri Abdul Nabi, aged 74 years,
Retired TTE, S. C. Rly., Secunderabad Division,
6 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
H. No. 25-04-38, Rahmath Nagar,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
49.M. Prem Kumar, S/o. Sri M. Paul, aged 63 years,
Retired C.T.I., S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 23-78/11/2, R. K. Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
50.Md. Rafee Ahmed,
S/o. Sri Pandu Saheb, aged 62 years,
Retired Chief Ticket Inspector,
H. No. 6-6-439/2, Gandhi Nagar, Kavadiguda,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 080, TS
51.M. Papa Rao, S/o. Sri Veeranna, aged 65 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-4-318, Vishnupuri,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
52.Moti Ram B, S/o. Sri Laxman Ram aged 71 years,
Retired A.D.M.E., S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 18/485, Mallikarjuna Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
53.M. Venkati, S/o. Sri Venkataiah, aged 67 years,
Retired Gate Keeper, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-1-113, Somidi,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
54.Mallaiah Kanakaiah, S/o. Sri Kanakaiah, aged 74 years,
Retired Pointsman, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 3-40/1, Ambedkar Veedhi,
Madikonda, KAZIPET - 506 001, TS
55.Mogili, S/o. Sri Veeraiah, aged 67 years,
Retired Trackman, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-4-277, Vishnupuri,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
56.Mark, S/o. Sri Manik, aged 63 years,
Retired Gateman, S. C. Rly., SC Division
H. No. 2-4-168/1, BANAREDDY PALLI, PO,
Burdipad, ZAHIRABAD - 502 220, TS
57.P. Subramnyam, S/o. Sri P. Swamy, aged 67 years,
Retired C.T.I., S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. Flat No. 302, HIG 623, Vidhura Vihar,
KPHB, Phase VI, Kukatpally, HYDERABAD - 500 072, TS
58.P. Hari Prasad, S/o. Sri P. V. R. Rao, aged 65 years,
Retired C.T.I., S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 2-22-99/4-401, R. S. Arcade,
7 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
VNR Colony, Road No. 6, Opp. H. P. Gas Agency,
Kukatpally, HYDERABAD - 500 072, TS
59.P. Pattabhiram, S/o. Sri P. V. Rao, aged 67 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 12-10-394/1, Sithafalmandi,
SECUNDERABAD - TS
60. P. Jagannadham, S/o. Sri Narasaiah, aged 64 years,
Retired Khalasi, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 30-2-293, Nehru Nagar,
Opp. Mettu Gutta, KAZIPET - 506 142, TS
61.P. Uppalaiah, S/o. Sri Narasaiah, aged 71 years,
Retired Keyman, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 1-95/3, Kanchari Vada,
MADIKONDA - 506 001, TS
62.Rajpal Ghalke, S/o. Sri S. B. Ghalke, aged 63 years,
Retired Guard, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 1-166, F-206, Pallavi Residency,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
63.Rukamuddin, S/o. Sri Abdul Khader, aged 70 years,
Retired Technician, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 1-2-96, Rahemath Nagar,
KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
64. R. Yadagiri, S/o. Sri R. Somaiah,
Retired Record Sorter, S. C. Rly., SC Division
H. No. 10-3-109/3/2, East Marredpally,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 026, TS
65.Rachappa, S/o. Sri Nagappa, aged 67 years,
Retired Trackman, S. C. Rly., SC Division
S. C. Rly, SC Division, Vill: TUMKUNTA,
Post: BURDIPAD, ZAHIRABAD - 502 220, TS
66.Ramaiah Anthaiah, S/o. Sri Anthaiah, aged 69 years,
Retired Sr. Trackman, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 7-4-68/1, Vill: Kottagudi,
Mdl: VIKARABAD, Dist: R. R. Dist, TS
67.R. D. B. Verma, S/o. Sri R. Laxshmaiah, aged 75 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 47/48, Tarbund, SECUNDERABAD - 500 003, TS
68.Rajasekhara Reddy A, S/o. Sri A.P.E. Reddy, aged 65 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division
H. No. BN 99, Balaram Nagar,
Safilguda, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
8 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
69.S. A. Rahiman, S/o. Sri Shaik Khasim, aged 76 years,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 30-667-23, Opp. Krupa Complex,
Chandragiri Colony, Neredmet, HYDERABAD, TS
70.Syed Zafrullah, S/o. Sri Syed Khasim, 67 years,
Retired C.T.I, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 2-43/A, Sai Nagar, Chaitanyapuri,
HYDERABAD - 500 060, TS
71.Syed Ameenuddin, S/o. Sri Syed Hussain, aged 76 years,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 11-3-384/2/01, Srinivasa Nagar, Warasiguda,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 061, TS
72.S. V. V. Rao, S/o. Sri Krishnaiah, aged 74 years,
Retired C.T.I, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 12-2-416/69, Ushodaya Colony,
Gudimalkapur, MEHDIPATNAM - 500 028, TS
73.S. A. Alikhan, S/o. Sri Mastan Khan, aged 68 years,
Retired C.T.I, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. Flat No. 153, Gulmohar Park,
Serilingampally, HYDERABAD - 500 019, TS
74.S. Bhanu Murthy, S/o. Sri S. V. Krishnaiah, aged 67 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 26-95/11, BN 118, Balram Nagar,
Safilguda, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
75.Suryakanth Maruthi Rao, S/o. Sri Maruthi Rao, aged 62 years,
Retired Track Maintainer, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 19-4-633, Humanabad Preethi Colony,
Naubad, BIDAR - 985 402, Karnataka State
76.Sangappa, S/o. Sri Ramalingappa, aged 66 years,
Retired points man, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 3-45, Driver Colony, Chinnahyderabad,
ZAHIRABAD - 502 220, TS
77.Srihari, S/o. Sri Balraj, aged 72 years,
Retired Carpenter, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 1-102/2A, Madikonda Rural,
MADIKONDA - 506 142, TS
78.S. K. B. Basha, S/o. Sri Meera Sahaeb, aged 66 years,
Retired CE & RS, S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 18-323/3, Road No. 1,
Mallikarjuna Nagar, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
79.T. Balarama Reddy, S/o. Sri T. C. S. Reddy, aged 69 years,
Retired C.C.I., S. C. Rly, SC Division,
9 RA21/9/2020 in OA 912/2018
H. No. 30-642, Sai Durgaland Arcade, Chandragiri Colony,
Safilguda, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
80.Vijayakumar G. M, S/o. Sri Bhaskara Rao, aged 63 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No.5-9-114/B2, Green Square Residency,
Krishna Pura, HANUMAKONDA - 506 001, TS
81.V. Shankaran, S/o. Sri K. Vembu, aged 65 years,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
Near: Namalagundu, Seethafalmandi,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 017, TS
82.V. Yadagiri, S/o. Sri V. Sai Lingam, aged 64 years,
Retired Technician (HS-I), S. C. Rly, SC Division,
H. No. 10-5-1/1, Prem Vijay Nagar Colony,
Beside: Sai Baba Temple, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
83.Venkataiah, S/o. Sri Gattamallu, aged 73 years,
Retired Points Man, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 4-76, Valmiki Nagar,
Madikonda, KAZIPET - 506 001, TS
84.Y. V. Narasimham, S/o. Sri Y. S. Murthy, aged 75 years,
Retired CRI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 3-117, Narasimhareddy Nagar,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
85.Y. K. Narasimha Rao, S/o. Sri Komaraiah, aged 74 years,
Retired Loco Pilot, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 25-09-139, Bapuji Nagar,
Hanumakonda, KAZIPET - 506 003, TS
86.Smt. N. Anantha Laxmi, W/o. Sri N. Dayashanker,
Retired CTI, S. C. Rly., SC Division,
H. No. 40, Laxminagar Colony,
Picket, SECUNDERABAD - 500 026, TS
87.Smt. K. Padmavathi, W/o. Sri K. K. Rao,
Retired HTTE, S. C. Railway, SC Division,
H. No. 18-221, Hanumanpet,
Malkajgiri, HYDERABAD - 500 047, TS
88.Smt. A. Sanjeevamma, W/o. Sri A. Subbarayudu,
Retired CE & RS, S.C. Railway, SC Division,
H. No. 9-2-745, Regimental Bazar,
SECUNDERABAD - 500 025, TS
... Respondents/ Applicants in OA
(By Advocate: Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao)
10 RA21/9/2020 in
ORDER (By circular)
{As per Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Member (Admn.)}
2. The Review Application has been filed by the respondents in the main OA seeking review of the order of the Tribunal in OA No.912/2018 dt.20.01.2020.
3. Since no hearing is considered necessary, the Review Application is being disposed under circulation as per Rule 17(3) of the C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
4. The operative portion of the judgment in OA No. 912/2018 is as under:
"(II) Further, the maintainability of the OAs and the reply statement have been contested keenly. However, of all facts and the averments made, the most important fact is that the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh issued interim stay in Writ Appeal No.1130 of 2016 (G. Rama Mohana Rao) and Writ Appeal No.1141 of 2016 (S. Srinivasa Rao), vide Order dated 25.10.2016, stating that:
".............The definition of the expression „employee‟ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended by amendment Act 47 of 2009 with effect from 03.04.1997, makes it clear that those who hold a post in Government and governed by any order or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity, will not be covered by the definition.
Therefore, there will be an interim stay of the order of the Controlling Authority."
Therefore, the disputed issue per-se being under the adjudication of the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, it would be proper and apt for the applicants to approach the respondents to purse for appropriate remedies, if so advised, in accordance with law, consequent to the disposal of the Writ Appeals referred to above, by the Hon‟ble High Court.
(III) With the above direction the OAs are disposed, with the consent of both the parties, with no order as to costs."
4. Regarding the contention raised in the RA that the verdict in OA being delivered by a Single Bench, learned counsel for the applicants as well as the respondents have consented for disposal of the OA as supra. Therefore, taking 11 RA21/9/2020 in objection on this aspect in the RA is not permissible. The relevant provisions of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993 provided in Appendix-I [Order No.1/32/87-JA, dated 18.12.1991], issued under Rule 18(c) of the said Rules of Practice, are extracted below:
"In supersession of the Order of the Chairman No.1/32/87-JA, dated 1.3.1988 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (6) of Section 5 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, I hereby authorize all the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal to function as a Bench consisting of a Single Bench and exercise the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal in respect of classes of cases specified in the Schedule with effect from 1-1-1992, subject to the following procedure:-
(1) That the case does not involve validity of any statutory provision or interpretation of any of the provisions of the Constitution;
(2) That it is open to either party to submit to the Single Member before the matter is taken up for admission or for final hearing, that it may be placed before a Bench of two Members. If such a request is made at the outset, the Single Member shall direct that the case be placed before an appropriate Bench of two Members. Once the case is taken up, no such request shall be entertained at any subsequent stage of the proceedings for admission or final hearing, as the case may be.
EXPLANATION:- (i) The party not making the request at the stage of admission shall not be precluded from making such a request when the case is taken up for final hearing.
(ii) The stage of admission would also cover cases which may be finally disposed of with the consent of parties at the admission stage.
(iii) Notwithstanding anything contained in the previous paragraphs if it any stage of the proceedings it appears to the Single Member that the case is of such a nature that it ought to be heard by a Bench of two members, he may refer it to the Chairman to transfer it to a bench of two members."
The consent of the parties would mean the consent of the respective counsel. The case was disposed based on the contents in the OA, Reply Statement, Rejoinder and additional reply. The case came up before the Single Bench 12 RA21/9/2020 in earlier on 5 occasions. On none of these occasions, any objection was made stating that the Single Bench should not hear the case nor does the docket order of the Tribunal indicate that there was any objection from the respondents' side for the Single Bench to hear. Moreover, it is well settled in law that the pleadings of a learned counsel before a Court are as good as written pleadings. Having participated in the proceedings at length and then turning around to state that consent has not been given is irrational, to say the least. Hence, in view of the aforesaid, the contention made is untenable.
5. In regard to the observation about the interim order of the Hon'ble High Court, it requires no reiteration that the order of a superior judicial forum has to be respected and abided by. The relevant para of the interim order, which is spinal to the dispute, is reproduced hereunder:
".............The definition of the expression „employee‟ under Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, as amended by amendment Act 47 of 2009 with effect from 03.04.1997, makes it clear that those who hold a post in Government and governed by any order or by any Rules providing for payment of gratuity, will not be covered by the definition.
Therefore, there will be an interim stay of the order of the Controlling Authority."
Therefore, a remark about the maintainability of OA was made in the context of the Hon'ble High Court being seized of the matter. The original applicants were directed to pursue appropriate remedies based on the outcome of the Writ appeal. The Divisional Personnel Officer who signed the affidavit and the Ld. Counsel for the respondents who argued the case need to understand that in view of the issues flagged in the operative portion of the verdict, the finding was that the original applicants should pursue appropriate remedies based on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court. It is incorrect to state that the OA was decided, it was indeed disposed leaving it open to the applicants therein to pursue appropriate 13 RA21/9/2020 in remedies consequent to the disposal of the Writ Appeal. It is elementary that the Tribunal should not adjudicate in a matter which is being heard by the Hon'ble High Court. Court order has to be followed otherwise there will be end of Rule of Law. By agreeing to the contention of the applicants to hear the OA and decide on merit, it would be impairment of administration of justice as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board vs C. Muddaiah on 7 September, 2007 in Appeal (Civil) No.4108 of 2007 as under:
" 31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not complied with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of Law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected."
6. In view of the above, a serious view of the remarks made by the respondents, as under, has to be taken:
"Further decided the matter basing on the interim order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court in the writ Appeal no 1130 of 2016 and 1141 of 2016"
Xxxx OA may be disposed on grounds mentioned in the reply/counters filed by the petitioners in the main OA."
The import of the remarks is that the Tribunal should decide the OA even if an issue of intrinsic relevance related to the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is central to the dispute, is being heard by the Hon'ble High Court and defacto, an interim direction to stay the relevant proceedings was issued by the Hon'ble Court and was in vogue when the case was heard by the Tribunal. For making 14 RA21/9/2020 in the comments referred to, action under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act has to be initiated. However, taking a liberal view, it is not intended to initiate such action at the first instance, in order to give an opportunity to the respondents to be careful in filing replies/RAs etc. They need to be responsible and properly apply their mind in filing affidavits before the Tribunal. One cannot appreciate as to how the Ld. Counsel for the respondents has allowed the respondents to file such an affidavit which belittles the dignity, respect and the authority of a superior judicial forum by their callous pleadings.
7. The OA was only disposed as stated supra since the matter was under
adjudication by the Hon'ble High Court and therefore, there can be no other disposal even by a Division Bench of this Tribunal. In that view, the OA was disposed of with the consent of both the parties. The process of the Court must be used bona fide and must not be abused. Respondents indulged in re-litigation by filing the RA when it is pretty well known that the Tribunal disposed the OA since it cannot adjudicate on an issue which is under the purview of the Hon'ble High Court and an interim order was prevailing. Given the Hon'ble High Court interim order there was no question of deciding the issue in favour of either of the parties. Thus, the Respondents in the OA have resorted to vexatious litigation for reasons stated, in the words of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.K. Modi vs K.N. Modi & Ors on 4 February, 1998 in C.A.No. 614 Of 1998 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 18711 of 1997} and T.C.{C} No. 13.97], as under:
The Supreme Court Practice 1995 published by Sweet & Maxwell in paragraph 18/19/33 (page 344) explains the phrase "abuse of the process of the court" thus: "This term connotes that the process of the court must be used bona fide and properly and must not be abused. The court will prevent improper use of its machinery and will in a proper case, summarily prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation and oppression in the process of litigation........ The categories of conduct rendering a claim frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process are not closed but depend on all the relevant circumstances. And for this purpose considerations of public policy and the interests of justice may be very material."
15 RA21/9/2020 in One of the examples cited as an abuse of the process of court is re-litigation. It is an abuse of the process of the court and contrary to justice and public policy for a party to re-litigate the same issue which has already been tried and decided earlier against him. The re-agitation may or may not be barred as res judicata. But if the same issue is sought to be re-agitated, it also amounts to an abuse of the process of court. A proceeding being filed for a collateral purpose, or a spurious claim being made in litigation may also in a given set of facts amount to an abuse of the process of the court. Frivolous or vexatious proceedings may also amount to an abuse of the process of court especially where the proceedings are absolutely groundless. The court then has the power to stop such proceedings summarily and prevent the time of the public and t he court from being wasted. Undoubtedly, it is a matter of courts' discretion whether such proceedings should be stopped or not; and this discretion has to be exercised with circumspection. It is a jurisdiction which should be sparingly exercised, and exercised only in special cases. The court should also be satisfied that there is no chance of the suit succeeding.
In the case of Greenhalgh v. Mallard [19147 (2) AER 255] the court had to consider different proceedings on the same cause of action for conspiracy, but supported by different averments. The Court held that if the plaintiff has chosen to put his case in one way, he cannot thereafter bring the same transaction before the court, put his case in another way and say that he is relying on a new cause of action. In such circumstances he can be met with the plea of res judicata or the statement or plaint may be struck out on the ground that the action is frivolous and vexation and an abuse of the process of court. In Mcllkenny v. Chief Constable of West Midlands Police Force and another [1980 (2) AER 227], the Court of Appeal in England struck out the pleading on the ground that the action was an abuse of the process of the court since it raised an issue identical to that which had been finally determined at the plaintiffs' earlier criminal trial. The court said even when it is not possible to strike out the plaint on the ground of issue estoppel, the action can be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court because it is an abuse for a party to re- litigate Further, the review also does not fall under any of the categories prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of State of W.B. vs Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612, which are as under:-
35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
16 RA21/9/2020 in
(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party seeking review has also to show that such matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court/tribunal earlier. Based on the above observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are no qualified grounds which warrant a review.
7. In the above circumstances, on all the fours, the RA is liable is to be dismissed and hence dismissed, with no order as to costs. The Tribunal would have been better assisted by the Ld. Counsel for the applicants in the RA by directing the applicants in the RA in filing a proper RA, if justified, in compliance with C.A.T. (Procedure) Rules, 1987 and in accordance with law as laid down by the superior judicial fora supra.
(B.V. SUDHAKAR) MEMBER (ADMN.) evr