Dismissed

Shri Ramdulal Anilbaran Mandal v. the Union of India Mumbai through General Manager and Others

Bombay HC10 Jan 2023WP/2176/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's denial of benefits under the Railway Re-structuring Scheme to a petitioner with an adverse service record. The Court held that the Tribunal did not err in excluding pre-scheme records where no evidence of satisfactory performance post-scheme was placed on record.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri Ramdulal Anilbaran Mandal Vs the Union… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

202-J-WP-2176-1 3

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.2176 OF 2013

¶5

Ramdulal Anilbaran Mandal Aged about 49 years, Occ. Service, R/o, C/o. Senior Section Engineer (P. Way), Central Railway, Pulgaon, District Wardha … Petitioner -vs-

¶6

The Union of India, Through General Manager, Central Railway, CST, Mumbai 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Central Railway, Kingsway, Station Road, Nagpur 3. C. B. Raikwar, Dy. Chief Engineer (Construction) Central Railway, Ajni, Nagpur

¶7

S. M. Nirmalkar, Section Engineer (P. Way), Instructor Zonal Railway, Training Institute, Bhusawal, District Jalgaon (Khandesh) 5. N. A. Nagdive S.S.E. (P. Way/Track) Central Railway, Nagpur … Respondents.

¶8

Shri I. M. Fidvi, Advocate for petitioner. None for respondents.

¶9

202-J-WP-2176-1 3

¶10

2/3

¶11

CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND MRS VRUSHALI V. JOSHI JJ. DATE : January 10, 2023

¶12

Oral Judgment : (Per : A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

¶13

The challenge raised is to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application No.2111/2008. By the said common judgment dated 05/12/2012 the learned Member of the Tribunal held that since there was an adverse remark in the service record of the petitioner for the year 2001-2002 he was not entitled to the benefit under the Re-structuring Scheme that was formulated by the respondents on 06/01/2004.

¶14

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the policy of Re-structuring Scheme came into force in the year 2004 and it was not permissible for the respondents to have considered the petitioner’s service record for a period prior to three years. By considering the service record for the year 2000-2001 which indicated ‘Below Average”, the petitioner’s claim has been disallowed. The learned counsel relies upon Clause 4.4 of the Re-structuring Scheme to urge that it is only on the basis of seniority that such re-structuring ought to have been undertaken. Respondent Nos.3 to 5 despite being junior to the petitioner in service, they had been granted benefit of re-structuring. It was thus submitted that by considering the service record prior to three years, the petitioner’s claim has been disallowed.

¶15

202-J-WP-2176-1 3

¶16

3/3

¶17

There has been no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Hence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner we have perused the documents on record. The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has merely observed in paragraph 9 that since there was an adverse remark for the year 2001-2002 which was communicated to the petitioner, he was rightly denied the benefit of Re-structuring Scheme. Even assuming that the service record for the year 2000-2001 indicating the performance of the petitioner to be “Below Average” is excluded from consideration, there is no material on record to indicate that for subsequent period from 2001-2002 and onwards the service record of the petitioner was satisfactory. The Tribunal has referred to the service record for the reason that for Clause-4.4 of the Re-structuring Scheme selection would be based on a scrutiny of service record and confidential report without holding any written and or viva-voce test. To enable a finding to be recorded that the petitioner was entitled to benefit on the basis of his service record, it was necessary for the petitioner to have placed on record his service reports for the period from 2001-2002 and onwards.

¶18

In absence of any such material on record we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶19

Hence for aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶20

(Mrs Vrushali V. Joshi, J.) (A. S. Chandurkar, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed byASMITA ADWAIT BHANDAKKAR Signing Date:10.01.2023 18:22:49 Asmita

Shri Ramdulal Anilbaran Mandal v. the Union of India Mumbai through General Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri Ramdulal Anilbaran Mandal v. the Union of India Mumbai through General Manager and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jayprakash Sahadeorao Manohar Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development and Revenue Department, Mumbai

Gajanan S/O Shebrao Gathe Vs Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Akola and Another

Miss. Juvena John Bhise Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Department of School Education and Sports, Mumbai

Suresh S/O Munaji Wanjari Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary, Ministry of General Administration Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Jaya Nilkanth Nerkar Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Rajapeth Ps Amravati and Another

Sanjay Shankar Pranjale Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Rajapeth Ps Amravati and Another