IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7008 of 2010 SHRI JHAGRO MANDAL S/O LATE NEHAL MANDAL, EX-FITTER UNDER LOCO SHED JHAJHA, P.O. JHAJHA, DISTTRICT- JAMUI, R/O VILLAGE- BENI BAK, P.O. & P.S. JHAJHA, DISTTRICT- JAMUI. ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, BIHAR. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR DIVISION AT DANAPUR, P.O. KHAGAUL, PATNA. 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONAL OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR DIVISION AT DANAPUR, P.O. KHAGAUL, PATNA. 4. THE DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER (P), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR DIVISION AT DANAPUR, P.O. KHAGAUL, PATNA. 5. THE DIVISIONAL ACCOUNTS OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR DIVISION AT DANAPUR, P.O. KHAGAUL, PATNA. 6. THE ASSISTANT MECHANICAL ENGINEER (P), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, LOCO SHED JHAJHA, DISTTRICT- JAMUI. 7. NIRMAL KUMAR BHATTACHARJEE MEMORI OLD L.I.C. MATHA POST MEMARI, DISTTRICT BURDWAN, WEST BENGAL RETIRED AS VELDOR GRADE 1, LOCO SHED DANAPUR, P.O. KHAGAUL, DISTTRICT- PATNA. ... RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02- 22.04.2010 Heard Mr. Jyotendra Pratap Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Vindhyachal Singh for the respondents. The present writ application has been filed calling in question the order dated 30.3.2009 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. 2 No.352 of 2008 (Jhagroo Mandal Vs. Union of India and others), whereby the original application preferred by the writ petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The petitioner had earlier approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.411 of 2006, seeking the relief he has prayed for in the present O.A. No. 352 of 2008. The same was dismissed by the learned Tribunal on 15.9.2006, on the ground of delay and laches. Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ application bearing C.W.J.C. No.7211 of 2007, which was considered and dismissed on merits by order dated 10.8.2007 (Annexure-4). This Court in the said order noticed as under: “It appears that the cause of action had arisen in 1993 whereas the aforesaid application (O.A. No.411 of 2006) was filed in 2006 almost after 13 years and no plausible explanation was given before the Tribunal. We are informed that the petitioner has already retired and he is getting his permissible pension. The matter, in our view, need not be entertained after a gap of 13 years.” 3. The petitioner once again approached the Tribunal by preferring the present O.A. No.352 of 2008, which has been dismissed by the impugned order, inter alia, 3 on the ground that the present original application has been filed for the same relief which was earlier rejected and upheld by the High Court. We are convinced that the original application is not maintainable before the learned Tribunal. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/