Dismissed

R.C.Francis Paul v. the General Manager, Southern Railway

Kerala HC22 Jun 2016OP (CAT)/169/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Original Petition under Article 227 challenged an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting a request for regular appointment with retrospective effect. The High Court held the Tribunal reasoned correctly that the delay was excessive and the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The Original Petition against the Central Administrative Tribunal order was dismissed.

R.C.Francis Paul Vs the General Manager, Southern… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE 2016/1ST ASHADHA, 1938

¶7

OP (CAT).No. 169 of 2016 (Z)

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 12-03-2014

¶9

PETITIONER/APPLICANT:

¶10

R.C.FRANCIS PAUL, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O.CHINNAPPAN, CHETHICHATHALAVILAI VEEDU, NEDIASALAI, ARUMANA P.O., KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU -629 151.

¶11

BY ADVS.SRI.E.C.POULOSE

¶12

SMT.BOBBY RAPHEAL.C

¶13

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶14

THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,

¶15

CHENNAI -600003.

¶16

THE CHIEF VIGILANCE DIRECTOR AND SENIOR DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI-600 003.

¶17

THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶18

BY SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS

¶19

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP (CAT).No. 169 of 2016 (Z)

¶21

APPENDIX

¶22

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶23

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A 180/00164/2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM.

¶24

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/03/2014 IN O.A.No. 180/00164/2014 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH.

¶25

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/12/2015 ISSUED BY THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

¶26

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29/12/2015 ALONG WITH NOTARIZED COPY OF THE SERVICE CARD SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

¶27

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 16/01/2016 SENT BY THE PETITIONER TO THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

¶28

P6 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 03/03/2016 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL

¶30

True copy

¶31

P.A to Judge

¶32

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶33

O.P.(CAT)No.169 of 2016

¶34

-----------------------------------------------------------------Dated this the 22^nd day of June, 2016

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Anil K.Narendran, J.

¶37

The petitioner is the applicant in O.A.No.164/2014 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. He has approached the Tribunal in the said O.A. seeking an order directing the respondents to give him regular appointment in the post of Trackman in the Southern Railway Thiruvananthapuram Division with retrospective effect, with all service benefits. He has also sought for an order directing the respondents to consider Annexure-A8 representation and pass appropriate orders thereon, with notice to him, after conducting a personal hearing.

¶38

By Ext.P2 order dated 12.3.2014 the Tribunal rejected

¶39

O.A.No.164/2014. Paras.4 to 6 of Ext.P2 order read thus:-

¶40

“4. We have carefully perused the entire materials placed by the applicant along with the Original Application including Annexure A-8 representation. Admittedly, the applicant had ceased to be a casual labourer ever since October, 1980. His name did not

¶41

O.P.(CAT)No.169 of 2016

¶42

¶43

figure in the seniority list of casual labourers prepared by the Railways. He had not appeared for the interview held in August 1998 based on the said seniority list. Significantly, the applicant had not approached any Legal Forum seeking redressal of his grievances, if at all he had any. He has filed this Original Application after more than 30 years with a prayer to give him appointment with retrospective effect.

¶44

The specific allegation made by the applicant in Annexure A-8 representation is that one Mr.Ganeshan had managed to misuse his labour card and obtained an employment. This alleged fraud was committed by the said Mr.Ganeshan some 30 years ago. But still the applicant had not initiated any action against Mr.Ganeshan till date. It is seen from Annexure A-8 that the applicant had submitted a complaint before respondent No.2 in this regard some time in 1998 and a lawyer notice was issued to respondent No.3 in 2008. However, admittedly the applicant had not taken any further action either on the basis of the representation or the lawyer notice. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that no worthful purpose will be served if a direction is issued to take further action on the basis of Annexure A-8 representation at this belated stage.

¶45

O.P.(CAT)No.169 of 2016

¶46

¶47

Therefore, the persuasive plea made by the learned counsel for the applicant in this regard cannot be entertained.”

¶48

It is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal the petitioner is before this Court in this Original Petition.

¶49

We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Southern Railway, representing the respondents.

¶50

The only issue that arises for consideration is as to

¶51

whether any interference with Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is warranted in this Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶52

A reading of Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal, the relevant paragraphs of which we have already extracted hereinbefore, makes it explicitly clear that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal in O.A.No.164/2014 nearly 30 years after he ceased to be a causal labourer under the 3^rd respondent. Though the petitioner alleged in Annexure A8 representation that one Ganeshan had misused his labour card and secured regular

¶53

O.P.(CAT)No.169 of 2016

¶54

¶55

employment under the 3^rd respondent, he has not initiated any action against the said person till date. It was in such circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that no worthful purpose will be served if a direction is issued to take further action on the basis of Annexure A8 representation at this belated stage. Accordingly, the Tribunal rejected the O.A. in limine. The reasoning of the Tribunal in Ext.P2 order is neither perverse nor patently illegal warranting an interference of this Court in exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶56

We also find that the challenge made in this Original Petition against Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal is highly belated. Though Ext.P2 order is one dated 12.3.2014, the present Original Petition is filed only on 13.4.2016, i.e., more than two years after Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal. The reasons stated by the petitioner in paras.10 to 15 of the Original Petition do not constitute sufficient cause justifying a belated challenge of Ext.P2 order passed by the Tribunal. In that view of the matter as

¶57

O.P.(CAT)No.169 of 2016

¶58

¶59

well we find absolutely no grounds to interfere with the said order passed by the Tribunal.

¶60

In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶61

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶62

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶63

skj

¶64

True copy

¶65

P.A to Judge

R.C.Francis Paul v. the General Manager, Southern Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.C.Francis Paul v. the General Manager, Southern Railway

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

State of Kerala Vs K.Maniyan

State of Kerala Vs Rajamma

Faizy.a Vs Honey G.Alexander

Sumathy Vs K.M Aboo Kunju

Nnion of India Vs T.P.Sankaran

Sumini Catherine Vs State of Kerala