Bombay High Court
Prabhakar Ghodpade & Ors vs Union Of India on 25 August, 2016
Author: B.R. Gavai
Bench: B.R. Gavai, V.M. Deshpande
WP 1704.2000 [J].odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1704 OF 2000
1] Shri Prabhakar Laxmanrao Ghodpade,
aged about 45 years,
Occ. Ex-M.V. Driver, now working
as Regular Khalasi, Back side of safe way
motors, Mankapur. Nagpur.
2] Shri Erik Robert,
aged about 38 years,
Occ - M.V. Driver (MRCL),
Gauge Conversion, S.E. Rly. Bombay,
Vidarbha Housing Board Colony,
Qr. No. 1/9, Pachpaoli,
Nagpur.
3] Shri Arun B. Bhusari,
aged about 38 years,
Occ - M.V. Driver (MRCL),
Gauge Conversion, S.E. Rly. Bombay,
Gorle Layout, Jaytala Road, Plot No.30,
Nagpur.
4] Shri Anil Manohar Samudre,
aged about 36 years,
Occ. - M.V. Driver (MRCL),
Indira Nagar, Jhattarodi, Near Rly. Line,
Nagpur.
5] Shri Naresh Mahabir Pali,
aged about 38 years,
Occ. Ex-M.V. Driver (MRCL),
Now working as Regular Khalasi,
IOW Nagpur Office, Central Railway,
Nagpur.
6] Shri Ashok Kalekar,
aged about 28 years,
Occ.-M.V. Driver (MRCL),
R/o. Vishwakarma Nagar, Galli No.3,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 00:16:56 :::
WP 1704.2000 [J].odt 2
7] Shri Devidas Gawali,
aged 38 years, Occ. M.V. Driver,
(MRCL), DCOS Ajni,
Nagpur.
8] Shri Dharampal Paikuji Ganvir,
aged about 38 years,
Occ. M.V. Driver (MRCL),
Accounts Office, DRM Office,
Central Railway, DRM Office Building,
Nagpur.
9] Shri Ganesh Gawai,
aged 35 years,
Occ. M.V. Driver (MRCL),
Gauge Conversion, CPM Office,
S.E. Rly. Building,
Nagpur.
10]Shri Faizkhan,
aged about 42 years,
Occ. M.V. Driver (MRCL),
r/o. Near Ras Kunj, Sadar,
Nagpur.
11]Shri M.M. Chaudhary,
aged about 42 years,
M.V. Driver, Gauge Conversion,
S.E. Rly. Building, Mankapur,
Back side of safe way,
Nagpur.
12]Shri Vilas Deshpande,
aged 45 years, Occ. M.V. Driver,
CPM RE. C. Rly. Building,
Nagpur.
13]Abdul Rashid Sheikh,
aged 40 years, Occ. M.V. Driver
(R.E.) (M.R.C.L.)
r/o. C/o. C.P.M. R.E.
Nagpur. .. Petitioners
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 00:16:56 :::
WP 1704.2000 [J].odt 3
.. Versus ..
1] Union of India,
Through Secretary, Ministry of Railway,
Rail Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2] Divisional Railway Manager,
Central Railway,
Nagpur.
3] General Manager,
Central Railway,
Mumbai-CST.
4] General Manager,
Central Organisation
for Railway Electrification,
Nawab Usuf Road, Near Punjab
National Bank, Civil Lines,
Allahabad (U.P.)
5] Vice Chairman,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Gulestan Building No.6,
Prescot Road, Fort, Mumbai. .. Respondents
..........
Shri R.S. Kurekar, Advocate for the petitioners,
None for the respondents.
..........
CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND
V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : AUGUST 25, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : B.R. GAVAI, J.)
The petitioners have approached this court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal dated 16.10.1996 thereby dismissing the original application of the ::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 00:16:56 ::: WP 1704.2000 [J].odt 4 petitioners as well as the order of review dated 22.8.1997 thereby dismissing the review of the order dated 16.10.1996.
The petitioners were originally appointed as Motor Vehicle Drivers and were working in that capacity since the year 1981. It is the contention of the petitioners that though the petitioners were entitled to be regularized as Motor Vehicle Drivers, their posts have not been regularized as permanent Khalashi. It is, therefore, contended that the petition deserves to be allowed and the respondents need to be directed to regularize the petitioners in the cadre of Motor Vehicle Drivers.
The perusal of the order passed by the learned Tribunal would reveal that the original application is rejected on the ground that the necessary trade test, which is required to be passed for being made permanent in the cadre of driver, has not been cleared by the present applicants. In the review also, the learned Tribunal found that no new material was placed on record. Even at the stage of hearing before this court, the petitioners have not been in a position to point out any documents to show that they have passed the trade test.
In that view of the matter, no case is made out by the petitioners. The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE JUDGE
Gulande
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 00:16:56 :::
WP 1704.2000 [J].odt 5
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by : A.S. Gulande, P.A. Uploaded on : 29.8.2016.
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/08/2016 00:16:56 :::