Patna High Court
M/S Goswami Society Security Service Pv vs The Union Of India & Ors on 15 March, 2017
Author: Shivaji Pandey
Bench: Shivaji Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5076 of 2016
===========================================================
M/s Goswami Society Security Service Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Kumar
Udhav Goswami, Gola Banch Road, Bhayan Sah Market, Ward No. 19, Near
Vanijya College, Muzaffarpur- 842001
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through its Secretary, Railway Department, New Delhi
2. The Chief Administrative Officer, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, District- Saran
(Chapra) -841221
3. The Chief Mechanical Engineer, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, District- Saran
(Chapra) -841221
4. The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer- II, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, (Chapra),
P.O.- Arvind Nagar Block, Dariapur, District- Saran (Chapra) -841221
5. The Assistant Security Commissioner, Rail Way Protection Force, Rail Wheel
Plant Bela (Saran)
6. The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer- II, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, Saran,
(Chapra)
7. The Supervision Officer, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela (Saran)
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kr. Sinha, Adv.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 15-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.
In this case, the petitioner is claiming that he was given the work of security services from December, 2014 to February, 2015 for Rail Wheel Plant, Bela, Saran. Against the service rendered by the petitioner, he filed a representation for payment of dues amount of Rs. 20,99,216.94 but, vide impugned order dated 7.1.2016, the Chief Administrative Officer, Rail Wheel Plant, Bela rejected the same on Patna High Court CWJC No.5076 of 2016 dt.15-03-2017 2 the ground that the security was being provided in two shifts, 12 hours each shift instead of three shifts of 8 hours per shift which is against the terms and conditions of contract and it has been mentioned that instead of payment of the aforesaid amount, the petitioner is liable to return Rs. 7,95,893/-.
There is an agreement between the petitioner and the Railway Administration, Clause 63, 64(1) to 64(7) whereof, provides that in case of dispute, the matter would be resolved through the Arbitrator. In that view of the matter, let the dispute be resolved through Arbitrator. Accordingly, the matter is referred to Justice S.K. Katriyar, a retired Judge of this Court, for adjudication of the dispute.
Let this order be communicated to Hon'ble Mr. S.K. Katriyar, a retired Judge of this Court.
With the aforementioned observation, this application is disposed of.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.03.2017 Transmission Date