^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.^^'1? OF 2011 PETITIONERS' 1. Union of India, through fhe General Manager, Zonal Office Building S.E. C. Railway, Bilaspur (C. G.) A.-^-' y,-^^ ..^ ^' ^^y ^.^o'^v ^•^o''N ^:^") ^y/- <^-"' q? / s^ ^•SJL^rtikl^ ~i^u^1i) ..'^.—-..^v/ The Financial Advisor 8s Chief Account Officer, Zonal Office Building S. E. C. Railway, Bilaspur (C. G.) 3. The Financial Advisor 8s CAO, S.E. Railway, Kolkota Zonal Office, Garden Reach-43 Kolkotta (W.B.) 700443 ^ 4. The Financial Advisor 85 CAO, SE Railway, East Coast Railway Zonal 1 Office, Chandrashekharpur, Bhuvneshwar, Orissa 751017 VERSUS v^ RESPONDENT5' ^" Rabi Narayan Rath, S/o. Brundaban Chandra Rath, aged about 45 years, R/o. Quarter No.l6/L, Bunglow Yard, Railway Colony Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Central Adniinistrative Tribunal, _0<-TICI,1' Jabalpur Baek, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The petitioner above named, respectfully beg to submit as under:- 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONERfS) : As shown in the cause title. "^. . 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTfS) : As shown in the c'ause title. ^s'^.^S^^-nasssy^yS^KC^p SSw^v^yls^^i :i^ wfl' v-KSSSt!^^ ,!"1 1 .-.¥ '':i^f^£/^>'^ ^s'!fS«i^°> ^ ^y' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K Aanihotri & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma. JJ. W.P.ISlNo. 2755/2011 Petitioners Respondents Vs. Union of India and others Rabi Narayan Rath and another. Present: Shri Vivek Verma, counsel for the petitioners. Shri Sriniwas Rao, counse! for respondent No.1. ORAL ORDER (25.11.2011) With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15 February, 2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit sitting Bilaspur, whereby the petitioners - Union of India was directed to release the applicant (respondent herein) to join East Coast Railway within 90 days of the receipt of the said order. Respondent No.1 has filed Original Application No.429/2010. On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that on 06.01.2011, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners (respondents therein) to seek instructions as to by which date the respondent would be relieved. On 15.02.2011, Mr. MN Banerjee, counsel appearing for the petitioners (respondents therein) was on adjustment. However, Shri Vijay Tripathi, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Shri Banerjee and requested for time. The learned Tribunal after having observed -iti •• ,<• vs-*v 'K?]r'T?t?^- -3- ^ that even if Mr. Banerjee was on adjustment, counsel appearing on his behalf would have been given full instructions, and on that basis, order was passed. It appears that the Tribunal has not considered the case on merit and on technical ground that the counsel for the petitioners was on adjustment, the Tribunal proceeded with the matter and passed theorder. 3. In view of the above, we are of the view that when the counsel was on adjustment and another counsel appears on his behalf showing his courtesy to the Tribunal and requested for time, the Tribunal ought to have given some time to the counsel and the matter could have been taken thereafter for decision. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider it afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously. 4. The writ petition is allowed. No order asto cost. Sd/- K. Agnihotri Judge Sd/- BADHE SHYAM SHABMA Judge ^inl