Dismissed

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Ravi Deo Prasad

Patna HC7 Nov 2017CWJC/14405/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge bench held that differentiation against the private respondent was invalid as judicial protection fortified all citizens. The court dismissed the writ petition, reiterating a previous Tribunal order that must be complied with. The Court criticized the audacity of the Department to assail the fair order.

What did the court decide?

Writ dismissed; Order of 07.04.2017 in O.A. 408 of 2013 reiterated.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Ravi Deo Prasad — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14405 of 2017

¶3

===========================================================

¶4

The Union of India through the Chairman and Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Corporate Office, Bharat Sanchar Bhawan, Janpath, New Delhi.

¶5

The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Bihar Circle, Patna (Bihar).

¶6

The General Manager Telecom District BSNL, Bhagalpur (Bihar).

¶7

The Divisional Engineer Telecom (A & P), Office of the General Manager Telecom District, BSNL, Bhagalpur (Bihar).

¶8

The Sub Divisional Officer, Phones BSNL, Bhagalpur (Bihar).

¶9

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶10

Versus

¶11

Ravi Deo Prasad, son of Sri Sheo Narayan Prasad, Village - Megharia, PO - Bargaon, District - Bhojpur.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Harendra Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶13

===========================================================

¶14

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and

¶15

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 07-11-2017

¶16

Having heard counsel for the petitioner representing the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, we are not satisfied and convinced that they have a valid reason for making discrimination against the private respondent while conferring the benefit of temporary status of a Mazdoor. Out of the list of 15 people, 14 got regularized but on a

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.14405 of 2017 dt.07-11-2017

¶18

¶19

specious ground that the private respondent continued in the position for more than 10 years because of judicial protection and therefore his case is distinguishable is contemptuous in nature. Such stand should not only be deprecated but the court should not allow such officer to take away livelihood by such kind of stand being taken before a court of law. If a judicial protection has been extended and granted then every citizen is fortified by the said order. Those orders cannot be detrimental to the interest of justice, for regularization.

¶20

The Tribunal has therefore rightly allowed the O.A. and the Court does not appreciate the audacity of the Department to assail such a fair order in the writ.

¶21

Writ is dismissed. The order dated 07.04.2017 passed in O.A. 408 of 2013 is reiterated. The time frame fixed by the Central Administrative Tribunal must be adhered to and complied with.

¶22

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)

¶23

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)

¶24

Arvind/-

¶25

AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
UploadingDate 09.11.2017
Transmission Date

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Ravi Deo Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union Of India and Ors. v. Ravi Deo Prasad

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

Abhay Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Smt. Kalawati Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Ram Vijay Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/s Hpcl Biofuels Limited Vs Harinagar Sugar Mills Limited and Ors.

Parvati Devi Vs Union Of India and Ors.

The Union Of India and Ors. Vs Manda Madhava Rao and Anr.