-^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITiON N0.2892 OF 2004 Parmeshwar Prasad Sharma, S/o Late Shri Ayodhya Prasad Sharma, aged about 56 years, R/o Qr.No.601/1 New Loco Coiony, Railway Colony, Biiaspur, Distt. Btlaspur (CG). Versus 1. Union of India. through the General Manager, S.E. Raiiway, Garden Reach , KolRata (WB) 2. The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur (CG). 3. DMsional Rajlway Manager. 8.E. Railway, Bilaspur, At present S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur (CG). 4. The Senior Divisional Personnel OfRcer, S.E. Railway, Bilaspur, At present S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur (CG). 5. The Senlor Qperating Manager, S.E. Railway, Bilaspur, At present S.E.C. Raihway, Bjlaspur (CG). 6. Chief Yard Master. S.E. Rai(way. Bilaspur. At present S.E.C. Railway, BHaspur (CG). (Writ petition underArtJcle 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Slnole Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present:- Shrs CJ.K. Rao, counsel for the petjtioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 10ln day of April, 2009) Case of the petitioner js that his date of birth is 22-9-1949, however. in the service record the same has been recorded as 1-3-1943. The petitioner fiied an origjnal appiicatlon before the Central Admmistatjve Tribunal, Jabaipur Bench, Jabalpur (forshort "the CAT") being O.A.No.115 of 2003. The CAT disposecl of the original application on 24-2-2003 (Annexure - P/3) observing that : "3. After hearing the !earned cpunsel of the applicant and after perusal of the records, we are of the view that the representetion/appeai dated 17-2-2003 filed by the appljcant before the respondent No.2 should be disposed of promptly. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the applioant, we r- ^ djrect the appiicant to send a copy of this order to re^pondent No,2 withjh one week. The respondent No.1 is djrected to dlspose of the pending representation within a p@riod of four weeks, but preferably before the date of retirement of the appticant, if it is possible for him to do so»He is directed to communicate hjs deci'sion to fhe appdcant promptly. " 2) After receipt of the order passea' by the CAT, the respondent aut'norities considered the representation/appeal of the petitjoner and passed a cietajled order on 22-3-2003. The petitioner has not impugned the order dated 22-3-2(X)3, which was passed by the respondent authorities, however, has sought for identica! relief, which was the subject matter before the CAT in O.A.No.115 of 2003. The petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the same ground and the same prayer, which has been considered by the CAT and the matter has been disposed of with certain directions. The representation/appeal was also consictered by the respondent authorities and there upon order has been passed. The sald order has not been chailenged by the petitioner in this petition. Thus. this petition is not maintajnable. 3) In view of the foregoing, the petition js {iable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge