1 wp2203.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2203 OF 2010 KJ Kaushal Kumar Sharma )..Petitioner Vs. Union of India through General Manager, W.Rly. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Rahul Walia for the petitioner. Mr.D.A.Athawale @ N.R.Prajapati & M.S.Bhardwaj for respondent nos.1 & 3. Mr.Suresh Kumar for respondent no.2. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 21/4/2011. PC 1 Heard Counsel for the parties. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Athawale waives notice for respondent nos.1 & 3 and Mr.Suresh Kumar waives notice for respondent no.2. 3 As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 2 wp2203.10.sxw 4 The grievance of the petitioner is that even though his case was covered by the decision in the case of Devendra S. Kori Vs The Regional Director & Anr in Writ petition No.1691 of 2007 decided on 8th September, 2008, similar relief was not extended to the petitioner. The reason stated by the department is that the petitioner made representation after the expiry of his training period. In the context of this stand, the petitioner asserts that he had made representation on 13.10.1999 through proper channel. Whereas, his training period expired on 28.10.1999. The stand of the department however, is that, the said representation was not received by the department before 28.10.1999. 5 Thus, the limited controversy is whether the representation made by the petitioner through proper channel on 13.10.1999 can be treated as made within time, in which case the petitioner would be entitled for the same relief as has been given to Devendra Kori (supra). The fact that the representation made by the petitioner did not reach the department before 28.10.1999, in our opinion, does not mean that the petitioner failed to make representation 3 wp2203.10.sxw before the expiry of his training period. Being in service, the petitioner was expected to make representation through proper channel. The officer has received such representation in time,but the same was not forwarded to the respondent no.2 before 28.10.1999. For that, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. In other words, for the inaction of the official of the proper channel the petitioner cannot be held liable. In that view of the matter, we hold that the petitioner made representation within time and for which reason, would be entitled for same relief as has been given to Devendra Kori (supra). 6 Accordingly, we allow this writ petition. Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses-(a) and (b) with no order as to costs. It is however, clarified that the petitioner would become eligible to be admitted in the next batch of Trade Apprenticeship Welder to be conducted by the Department hereafter. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)