IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 6889 of 2009 Between: Y.Revathi Narayana Rao S/o.Y.Narayana Rao O/o.Divisional Railway manager (Works), South Central Railway, Vijayawada,Krishna District, R/o.Flat No.308 Block A Sridevi Towers, Yanamalakuduru Lokula Road Krishna nagar,Vijayawada,Krishna District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Union of india., rep.by its Secretary, (Estt) M/o.Railways Railway Board, New Delhi 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 3 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 4 The Principal, Chief Engineer, SouthCentral Railway 5th Floor, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad 5 The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada,Division, Vijayawada, Krishna District 6 The Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination) South Central Railway ,Vijayawada Division, Vijayawada Krishna District .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of theCentral Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.199 of 2009 dated 23.3.2009 and LR.No.P/E/535/DOS/SE/Drg/Vol.VIII dated 2.3.2009 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway,Secundrabad and set aside the same and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to continue as Section Engineer on the basis of her selection and empanelment in the select list in the pay scale of 65--=10500/9300-34800 with G.P.Rs.4600/- with all consequential benefits and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.D.LINGA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: SMT.PUSHPINDER KAUR The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY W.P.No.6889 of 2009 ORDER: (Per Ghulam Mohammed,J) Aggrieved by the order, dated 23.3.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in O.A.No.199 of 2009, this writ petition is filed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the third respondent issued proceedings dated 2.5.2008 reverting the petitioner from the post of Section Engineer to the post of Junior Engineer. Aggrieved by the said proceedings, the petitioner earlier filed O.A.No.290 of 2008. However, in the said O.A. as no interim orders were granted, the petitioner filed writ petition No.11270 of 2008 and in W.P.M.No.14630 of 2008, this court granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 2.5.2008 in respect of the petitioner on 28.5.2008 and observed that it is open for the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the respondents issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 29.8.2008 and she submitted her explanation. Being not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the third respondent issued proceeding dated 2.3.2009 reverting the petitioner from the post of Section Engineer to that of Junior Engineer (Drawing) Grade 1. Against the said proceedings, the petitioner filed the present O.A. before the Tribunal and the same was returned observing that unless writ petition No. 11270 of 2008 and O.A. No.290 of 2008 are disposed of, the Tribunal cannot entertain the fresh O.A. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that by virtue of interim orders granted by this court in W.P.M.P. No 14630 of 2008 in W.P.No. 11270 of 2008, show cause notice was served on the petitioner and on receipt of explanation from her, the authorities decided to revert her by proceedings dated 2.3.2009, and a fresh cause of action arose on 2.3.2009 for her to file the present O.A. and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have entertained the O.A. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents submits that the Tribunal, after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the pendency of W.P.No.11270 of 2008 and O.A.No.290 of 2008, has rightly returned the O.A. 5. As seen from the record, the petitioner has earlier filed O.A.No.290 of 2008 and when the Tribunal refused to grant interim order, she approached this court by filing W.P.No.11270 of 2008 and this court granted interim suspension of the proceedings dated 2.5.2008 in W.P.M.P.No.14630 of 2008 and observed that it is open for the respondents to issue notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. Pursuant to the interim order, the respondent authorities served show cause notice on the petitioner and she submitted her explanation, however, not satisfied with the explanation, the respondent- authorities reverted the petitioner from the post of Section Engineer to Junior Engineer Grade-1 by proceedings dated 2.3.2009. Therefore, a fresh cause of action arose on 2.3.2009 for the petitioner to file O.A. The Tribunal returned the O.A. merely on the ground that the matter is seized by this court in W.P.No 11270 of 2008 and the Tribunal in O.A.No.290 of 2008. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to entertain the O.A in view of the fresh cause of action and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 6. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J _______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, 02.04.2009 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1) 2 CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRK}