1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1340 OF 2011. Smt. Aasha w/o Deepak Raut, aged about 42 years, Occ-License Porter, R/o Mili Shop, Quarter NO.85/2, Bezonbagh, Nagpur. .... Petitioner. ..Vrs.. 1. The Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan,New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, South Eastern Central Railway,Billaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, Nagpur Division,Nagpur. .... Respondents. -0-0- Mr. P.D.Meghe,Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. N.P.Lambat for respondent No.3 -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 23.06.2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (per B.P.Dharmadhikari, J.) 2 1. Heard. 2. Rule, By consent. Rule is made returnable forthwith and is heard finally. 3. Looking to the nature of the controversy, affidavit in support of reply proposed to be filed by the respondents is dispensed with and reply signed by respondent no.3 is taken on record. 4. Short contention is Advocate Shri Meghe is as per the settlement dated 27.1.2006 arrived at between the parties under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No.408/2009 filed by the General Secretary, directed the respondents to give effect to assignment from the date of settlement i.e. from 27.1.2006. He states that if this date is accepted, the policy decision dated 1.4.2008 automatically becomes applicable to the petitioner and she, therefore, needs to be considered for appointment to the post of Gangman. 5. Advocate Shri Lambat has invited attention to the reply. He contends that communication dated 1.4.2008 is one time policy 3 measure adopted by Railways and it requires the incumbent to be working on 26.2.2008. He points out that husband of the petitioner had expired on 6.11.2005 and hence the said benefits could not have been extended to deceased husband. He further contends that even on the date on which Division Bench of this Court delivered its judgment i.e. on 25.2.2010, the petitioner was not at work and hence said clause is not attracted. His contention is 27.1.2006 is the date for giving effect to transfer of license and nothing more. 6. After perusal of necessary documents, we find settlement dated 27.1.2006 arrived at between the parties conferred the status as Licensed Porter upon petitioner and the submission to that effect was made before the4 Conciliation Officer by Railways on 27.1.2006. As this status was not being accepted and batch of deceased husband was not being transferred to her, the petitioner ultimately approached this Court in Writ Petition No 425/2009 through her Union. Advocate Shri Meghe states that Annexure V annexed with the petition is copy of identical order passed in matter filed in relation to another employee Smt. Asha. 7. Division Bench of this Court accepted date of settlement as the date on which transfer should have been given effect to and 4 accordingly direction has been issued. This direction issued on 25.2.2010 has attained finality. It is, therefor, obvious that respondents have to treat the present petitioner as Licensed Porter form 27.1.2006. 8. The moment she becomes licensed ported on 27.1.2006, policy decision dated 1.4.2008 is squarely attracted and hence respondents have to take appropriate decision and decide whether she is eligible for the post of Gangman or not. If arguments of respondents are to be accepted for not conferring status of Licensed Porter upon the petitioner within reasonable time which is found to be incorrect by this Court, they will stand to benefit and the prejudice will cause to the petitioner. The respondents, therefor, cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. 9. In the circumstances, the petition is allowed. Impugned communication dated 28.9.2010 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents shall treat petitioner as Licensed Porter from 27.1.2006 and consider her entitlement to the post of Gangman in accordance with the law as early as possible and in any case within a period of 12 weeks from the date of communication of this order to them. 5 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//