IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.123 of 2009 1. RAJESH KUMAR SINGH, son of Sri Madan Mohan Singh, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Muzaffarpur, resident of Holding No.245 Salempur (Near Ganga Singh College, Chapra), District- Chapra. 2. Satish Kumar, son of late Saryug Mahto, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M) Bhagalpur, resident of village + Post- Mohammadpur, Via- Barh, District- Patna. ......Petitioners. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INIDA, through Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, Government of India, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief General Manager, Telecommunication, Bihar Circle, Patna. 3. The Telecom District Manager, Chapra-841301. 4. The Director, Maintainance, E.T.R., Patna-13. 5. D.E. (A&P), Office of T.D.M., Chapra. 6. D.E.T. O.F.C. (M), Purnia. 7. D.E.T. M/W (M), Bhagalpur. 8. D.E.T. M/W (M), Darbhanga. 9. D.E.T. M/W (M), Muzaffarpur. 10. D.E.T. L/D, Patna. 11. D.E.T. F/C, Patna 12. D.E.T. Sat (M), Patna. 13. Sanjay Kumar Singh, worked as Time Scale Mazdoor, under Divisional Engineer, Telecom., Optical Fibre Cable (Maintainance), Purnia. 14. Krishna Nandan Kumar Singh, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Darbhanga. 15. Amresh Kumar Singh, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. O.F.C. (M), Purnia. 16. Sanjay Prasad, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. O.F.C. (M), Purnia. 17. Arun Kumar, working as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Bhagalpur. 18. Ashok Kumar Singh, worked as T.S.M. under DET M/W (M), Bhagalpur. 19. Rakesh Kumar, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Bhagalpur. 20. Nitish Kumar, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Darbhanga. 21. Navin Kumar Singh, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Darbhanga. 22. Rajaneesh Kumar Singh, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. M/W (M), Muzaffarpur. 23. Rajesh Ranjan, worked as T.S.M. under D.E.T. L/D, Patna. 24. Shard Kumar Verma, worked as T.S.M., under D.E.T., F/C, Patna. 25. Satyajeet Kumar Singh, worked as D.E.T. SAT (M), Patna. ..... Respondents. ----------- 2 For the petitioners: Mr. Surya Kant Singh, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Subhash Kishore Verma with Mr. Jainendra Kumar Pushkar & Mr. Shiv Shankar Prasad, Advocates. -------------- 07- 4.8.2010 The petitioners of this review application have prayed for review of the order dated 23.4.2008 (Annexure-1), passed in C.W.J.C. No.8286 of 2007 (Rajesh Kumar Singh & another Vs. The Union of India and others), by which the writ petition of the petitioners preferred against the order dated 5.10.2006, passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.764 of 2000, was dismissed. 2. Earlier the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal had dismissed the said original application of the petitioners on the ground that the authority who had granted temporary status to them was devoid of powers. Therefore, the order granting temporary status was illegal and without jurisdiction and, therefore, the same was rightly recalled by the respondents. 3. While dismissing the writ petition, this Court found that nothing has been produced by the petitioners to show that any order existed conferring the power of D.E. (Phones) to perform the work of DE (A & P) of a date prior to the dates of orders conferring temporary status to them. 3 This review application has been preferred by the petitioners on the premise that a document existed of the date on which the alleged temporary status was conferred upon the petitioners to show that the said authority Sri S.D. Prasad, DE (Phones), was exercising the power of DE (A & P). It was contended that Annexure-8 to the writ petition was an evidence of such exercise of powers. 4. In view of such stand of the petitioners, the respondents were earlier directed to file the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the respondents have stated that earlier no formal conferment of power on Sri S.D. Prasad, DE (Phones) was issued to enable him to function as D.E. (A & P). It is stated in the counter affidavit that he exercised that power illegally during the period for which notices were issued to him and he was proceeded against. 5. In view of the aforesaid stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit on oath, this Court does not find any merit in this review application. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (J.N. Singh, J.) S.K.Pathak/