CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12445 OF 2005 -------- In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. -------- 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the Chief Post Master General, BiharCircle, Patna 2.The Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Patna Division, Patna. 3.The Sr. Posatmaster, Bankpipur, Head Post Office, Patna …..petitioners. Versus 1.VIMAL KUMAR , son of Late Jawahar La, resident of Mohalla Aalamganj,P.S. Alamganj, District Patna 2.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna through its Registrar…. Respondents. For the petitioners. Mr. Binay Kr. Pandey, CGC For the Respondents: Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Shiva Kirti Singh & B.P. Verma, JJ Heard the parties. The Union of India and the concerned officials of Department of Post at Patna are petitioners in this writ petition. They have sought various reliefs which amount to seeking interference with the order dated 11.2.2005 passed by the learned Central - 2 - Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 180/03. By that order which is under challenge, the Tribunal has allowed the original application following its own judgment in O.A. No. 824 of 2000 on the ground that claim of the applicants in both the O.As involved similar issues of facts and law. It is not in dispute that against the decision of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 824 of 2000 the petitioners had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 11818 of 2005 which has been heard today and dismissed by a reasoned order. After hearing the parties, we find that there is no material difference in the facts of the two cases except that the respondent employee in the present case was engaged as a Mazdoor for a longer period, ie, from 1984 till May 2000, whereas the employee in the other O.A. had been so engaged between the - 3 - Patna High Court The 8th July 2010 Rahman/NAFR year 1988-2000. For the reasons mentioned in our judgment delivered today in C.W.J.C. No. 11818 of 2005, we find no merit in this writ petition as no case has been made out to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)