Dismissed

Shankar Lal Meena v. Union of India Thru. Director General,Research Development and Standard Organization and 4 Ors.

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023/1179/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a railway employee's repatriation stay application. The Court held the Tribunal's decision was not erroneous and refused to direct the North Western Railway to permit the petitioner to join, as the Railway was not a party to the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to approach appropriate authority of North Western Railway for redressal of grievances. Petition dismissed.

Shankar Lal Meena Vs Union of India Thru. Director… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1179 of 2023 Petitioner :- Shankar Lal Meena Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Director General,Research Development And Standard Organization And 4 Ors.

¶2

Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar,Saroj Kumar Verma,Sudhanshu Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶3

Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶4

Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior/Advocate and Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned Central Government Counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

¶5

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 16.12.2022 and 23.01.2023, passed in Original Application No.475 of 2022.

¶6

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working as Deputy Chief Engineer/Construction/ North-Western Railway, Dausa in Northern Railway, he was selected for being appointed on deputation on the post of Senior Section Engineer/Inspection Civil in Research, Design and Standard Organization for a period of four years which could have been increased or decreased as per the discretion of the administration. The petitioner was spared for joining on the aforesaid post on 31.08.2019, however, before completion of the tenure of his

¶7

appointment in Research Development and Standard Organization on deputation the petitioner has been relieved to enable him to join his parent department. The petitioner challenged his repatriation order before the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.475 of 2022 and he sought an interim relief of stay of operation of the order dated 22.09.2022, whereby he was repatriated with effect from 23.09.2022.

¶8

Learned Tribunal rejected his application for interim relief by means of an order dated 15.12.2022 on the ground that the order whereby the petitioner was appointed in Research Development and Standard Organization on deputation itself state that the tenure of his posting may be increased or decreased by the administration and therefore the Railway Administration is well within its jurisdiction to reduce the term of the posting of the petitioner.

¶9

As per the petitioner after rejection of his application for interim relief he went to report on the post of Dy.C.E. Construction/North West Rly/Dausa, however the Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction-II North Western Railway has written a letter dated 23.012.2022 stating that the post of Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, North Western Railway, Dausa Rajasthan has been abolished and transferred as Sr. DEN/South/Jodhpur.

¶10

Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the

¶11

Central Administrative Tribunal stating that he has not been allowed to join under Deputy Chief Engineer, Construction, NWR, Dausa and he again prayed to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 22.09.2022.

¶12

Learned Tribunal has rejected the aforesaid application of the petitioner, stating that the earlier application for stay of the order dated 29.09.2022 had been rejected and by the subsequent application he wanted rewriting of the earlier order rejecting his application for interim relief which was impermissible. Learned Tribunal further observed that North Western Railway was not made a party to the Original Application and therefore the plea of petitioner that he had not been allowed to join in North Western Railway could not be adjudicated. Learned Tribunal further observed that it was an administrative matter which may be settled by the administrative authorities of the Railway.

¶13

Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is willing to join his parent department in compliance of the repatriation order dated 22.09.2022 which he was not being allowed to join.

¶14

Per contra, Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India has opposed the writ petition and he submitted that the petitioner has not impleaded proper opposite parties, either in the Original Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal or before this Court. He has

¶15

submitted that the petitioner has impleaded Union of India through Director General, Research Development and Standard Organization, Manak Nagar, Lucknow, whereas the Union of India should have been impleaded through the Secretary of the concerned Department and it cannot be impleaded through Director General of any Organization. Moreover, there is no Organization named as 'Research Development and Standard Organization' and therefore he is unable to obtain appropriate instructions for want of proper opposite parties having been impleaded in the present case.

¶16

It is strange that when the petitioner himself was serving in the Research Design and Standards Organization since the year 2019, he has described the Organization in the array of opposite parties as 'Research Development and Standard Organization' for which reason the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India could not obtain proper instructions in the matter.

¶17

In any case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is an employee of the Indian Railways and prior to his tenure appointment on deputation in 'Research Design and Standards Organization' he was working in North Western Railway. The tenure of his deputation has been put to an end by an order dated 22.09.2022 and he has been repatriated to his parent Department. Therefore, we do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, rejecting his

¶18

application for temporary relief seeking stay of the order of repatriation or rejection of his second application for interim relief seeking the same relief.

¶19

At this stage, Mr. Praveen Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner requested that a direction be issued to the North Western Railway to permit the petitioner to join on any appropriate post.

¶20

The North Western Railway has not been impleaded by the petitioner either in the Original Application filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal or in the writ petition and, therefore, no direction can be issued by this Court to the North Western Railway.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed . However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the appropriate authority of North Western Railway for redressal of his grievances.

¶22

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)

¶23

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Ram.

¶24

Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shankar Lal Meena v. Union of India Thru. Director General,Research Development and Standard Organization and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Lal Meena v. Union of India Thru. Director General,Research Development and Standard Organization and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Singh Vs Satyendra Singh and Ors.

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Govt. Lko. and Another Vs Rajesh Kumar Chaturvedi

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Irrigation and Water Resources Deptt. Lko. and Another Vs Surendra Pratap Singh

Kanti Devi and Another Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Smt. Reeta Devi Vs Sri Rajendra Kumar

Sharad Verma Vs Ritu Katiyar