Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Sharnappa F Hooli C Rly vs M/O Railways on 28 January, 2019
Q SSAA MMA TO EE
1. OA No. 20/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH, MUMBAL.
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2019 Date Of Decision:- 28° January, 2019. CORAM: R. VIIAYKUMAR, MEMBER (A).
Shri. Sharnappa H. Hooli A/P. Jaysingpur Railway Colony, Quarter No.B/3, Tal. Shirol, District Kolhapur 416101. ... Applicant (Applicant by Advocate Shri. Tushar Pimple) Versus i. Union of India, Central Railway Headquarters, Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, _ Mambai 400001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway Divisional Office Pune.
3. Junior Engineer, Grade I (Works) Central Railway, Miraj Division, Miraj, Tal. Miraj, District Sangit weudtespondents ORDER (ORAL d. Today, when the matter was called out for admission, heard Shri. Tushar Pimple, learned counsel for applicant. We have carefully perused the case records.
2 The applicant has filed this application on 19.07.2018 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
"8fa) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to call record and proceeding in respect of the impugned orders;2 GA No. 20/2019
(bh) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order.
No. PA(P/Wel/CG/2017/Mise. . Dated 05.07.2017 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Pune;
{c) Pass any other and/or further order as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in light of justice equity and good conscience * 2
3. Despite the fact that there are objections from the Registry, heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant had undergone open heart surgery in 2008 and had been medically decategorized after which he was posted as Pitter Grade TIT which is an alternative job which he accepted | and joined in 2009, He filed an application which was received on 01.12.2010 (Annexure A-2) stating that he was unable to do this work and requested:a lighter job in any department or else he may be permitted to tender voluntary retirement by giving compassionate appointment to his ward. No reply was apparently received to this request as stated by the applicant nor has he pursued the matter until an application dated 22.06.2017, by which he requested voluntary retirement and the respondents have replied on 05.07.2017 stating that the compassionate appointment to the wards, of medically decategorized employees are considered if applied within the period of five years from the date of the decategorization of the ex-employee (RBE Circular © a J OA No. 20/2618 No.2/1997). In his case, although he was medically decategorized, he was offered an alternative job and he joined in that post in 2009. Therefore, he was not eligible. However, had 'he refused an alternative job, he could have been considered for voluntary retirement against the compassionate appointment of his ward. |
4. The applicant has not explained the delay between 2010 and 2017 when there is no evidence for having pursued the matter and taken legal remedies which were available to him after the said period. He has also not explained the provision of rules that have been violated in not considering his case. It is quite apparent that his case was properly considered. At this stage, not only from the aspect of limitation by virtue of delay in contesting his matter, the due consideration from aspect of merits also suggests 'that his application is without any merits whatsoever and it is accordingly dismissed.
5. In the aforesaid terms the OA is dismissed without any order as to costs. .
(R. Vijaykumbt) Member (A)