This appeal against a Central Administrative Tribunal order holds Railway employees eligible for travelling allowance between two stations despite distance disputes. The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition under Article 227, finding no manifest miscarriage of justice.
The original petition challenging the CAT order was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.HARILAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2015/11TH CHAITHRA, 1937
OP (CAT).No. 64 of 2015 (Z)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 49/2013 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 25-09-2014.
PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS IN THE O.A.:-
-------------------------------------
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI - 600 003.
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.
BY ADV. SRI.V.K.MOHAMMED YOUSUF
RESPONDENTS/APPLICANTS IN O.A.:-
1. RAVEENDRAN NAIR.R., S/O.RAGHAVAN NAIR, STATION MANAGER, OCHIRA RAILWAY STATION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, RESIDING AT: SREEVALSAM, AKAMAPALADY, SASTHAMKOTTA,
KOLLAM - 690 521.
2. G.ARUN, S/O.K.R.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, STATION MASTER, KARUNAGAPALLY RAILWAY STATION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, RESIDING AT POUTHUMANA,THEVALAKKARA WEST, KOLLAM - 690 524.
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-04-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
OP (CAT).No. 64 of 2015 (Z)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
------------------------
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.49/2013 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT IN OA NO.49/2013 FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 IN OA NO.49/2013.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS
-----------------------
NIL
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & K. HARILAL, JJ.
O.P. (CAT) No.64 of 2015-Z
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2015 JUDGMENT
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.
We have heard the learned counsel for the Railways.
O.P. (CAT) No.64 of 2015 -: 2 :-
Railway Establishment Code, we asked the learned counsel as to how many trains moving from Karunagapally would stop in Ochira. Obviously, only some passenger trains. This means, a person has to wait for those passenger trains and we have to expect those railway employees not use buses or other mode of transport. On the whole, we see that the Tribunal has addressed all factual issues and has concluded that the employees are entitled to the benefit claimed by them. We do not see that the impugned order results in any manifest miscarriage of justice or any illegality infracting any principle which calls for strict compliance. We see no ground to invoke Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the impugned order at the instance of the establishment.
In the result, this original petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
( THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE)
Sd/-
(K. HARILAL, JUDGE)
Nan/
//true copy//
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked against the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal in a writ petition filed by the Railway establishment.
Whether the impugned order granting travelling allowance causes any manifest miscarriage of justice or illegality.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Union of India
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway
Raveendran Nair
G. Arun
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan
K. Harilal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
