The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed a subsequent application for implementing a prior order concerning the implementation of the LARGESS scheme for appointing a physically disabled ward.
The writ application 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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21527 of 2014
=========================================================== Vijay Shankar Prasad, son of Late Mahamuni Prasad, Ex-Shuntman (SM/MGS) ECR, Mugalsarai, Resident of Village- Churamanpur, P.S. Buxarr (Industrial), District- Buxar.
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nil Kamal, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Kumar Alok, Advocate.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 24-08-2016
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short “the Tribunal”) on 31st of October, 2014 in O.A. No. 050/00736 of 2014 whereby, an Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed for the reason that the same is not maintainable as such an application is for implementation of earlier order passed by the Tribunal.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21527 of 2014 dt.24-08-2016
2/4
i.e. O.A. No. 871 of 2013 and O.A. No. 736 of 2014 are reproduced in
juxtaposition:-
| O | .A. No. 871 of 2013 | O.A. No. 736 of 2014 |
|---|---|---|
| 8(a). | Respondents be directed to consider the case of applicant |
8(a) Respondent No. 02 be directed to compliance the order passed by this |
| for appointment of his son under the LARGESS Scheme |
Hon’ble Tribunal in O.A. No. 871 of 2013 disposed of on 27.3.2014 |
|
| as per the amended |
contained as Annexure-6 to this | |
| Notification of letter |
application. | |
| (Annexure-1) vide Annexure- | 8(b) Respondent no. 2 be directed to | |
| 4 immediately before the | recruit the ward of applicant as per | |
| superannuation of applicant | the letter of Respondent no. 01 | |
| i.e. 31.1.2014. | bearing RBE No. 131/2010, dated | |
| 8(b). | Respondents be directed to | 11.09.2010 (Annexure-1) under |
| consider the case of applicant under LARGESS Scheme as |
LARGESS Scheme which was amended by Respondent no. 1 |
|
| per his application proforma | himself bearing RBE No. 4/2012 | |
| (Annexure-3) in light of |
dated 3.1.2012 contained as |
|
| Annexure-4 and the same is | Annexure-4 to this application, | |
| not debarred to applicant due | under which PET followed by | |
| to applicant is going to be | written examination dispensed with | |
| superannuated on 31.1.2014. | under LARGESS Scheme. But | |
| 8(c). | Respondents be directed to | respondent no. 2 and 3 compell to |
| accept their own letter by | the applicant alongwith other |
|
| which they order to dispense | candidates whose minimum |
|
| with written test for |
qualification fixed for 8thpassed to | |
| recruitment of wards vide | appear into written test of |
|
| Notification amended to |
Mathematics, Arithmatics, |
|
| earlier Notification for |
Intelligentia test, Reasoning etc. to | |
| written test in favour of the | only appoint on the basis of pick | |
| applicant before his |
and choose method arbitrarily, | |
| (applicant) superannuation |
malafide illegally and 1st |
|
| and if applicant |
examination held on 26.08.2012, |
Patna High Court CWJC No.21527 of 2014 dt.24-08-2016
3/4
superannuated from service 29.12.12 after amended order dated
during the pendency of 03.01.2012 (Annexure-4), 3 rd and
proceeding or the present 4 th examination was held on
application of this Tribunal 24.11.13 & 16.5.2014, against again
than applicant would not be dispense with examination (Anx-5).
debarred from relief under 8(c) Respondent no. 2 be directed to
amended Notification (Ann- appoint the ward of applicant,
4) for voluntary retirement although similarly situated ward of
and appointment of his word Respondent no. 5 has been
under LARGESS Scheme. appointed under LARGESS
8(d). Respondents be directed to Scheme.
dispose of the
application/Representation of
applicant pending before
Respondent 3 and 4
contained as Annexure-5
before superannuation of
applicant i.e. 31.1.14.
8(e). Respondent be directed to
appoint the son of applicant
and declare retire to the
applicant under LARGESS
Scheme and immediately
under amendment
Notification (Annexure-4)
before his retire i.e.
31.1.2014 and the same
would not be debarred, if
applicant get the age of
superannuation (31.1.2014).
Patna High Court CWJC No.21527 of 2014 dt.24-08-2016
4/4
Original Application is the same as in the first Original Application inasmuch as the petitioner has sought implementation of the order passed by the Tribunal in the First Original Application. The second prayer in the subsequent Original Application is combination of 1st and 2nd prayer in the first Original Application. Since substantially, the second Original Application is for claiming the same relief in the first Original Application, which is decided, therefore, the petitioner cannot file the second Original Application for implementation of the order passed in the first Original Application. The relief claimed is of appointment of the son of the petitioner as he is suffering from physical disability and the scheme framed provides for appointment of a ward of an employee.
(Hemant Gupta, J)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)
P.K.P. N.A.F.R.
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner can file a subsequent writ application seeking implementation of a previously dismissed order by the Central Administrative Tribunal regarding the appointment of his son under the L
Whether the Tribunal's order dismissing the application for non-maintainability as a subsequent application for the same relief is correct.
Vijay Shankar Prasad
Union of India
General Manager (P) East Central Railway
Divisional Manager (P) East Central Railway
Senior Divisional Personnel Officer
Kanhiya Pandey
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
