IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.18251 of 2009 1. SHAIL KISHORE PRASAD S/O SRI DR. NAND KISHORE PRASAD C/O DR. N.K. PRASAD, P. GUPTA CAMPUS, KAJIPUR NAYA TOLA, P.S. KADAMKUAN, DISTT. PATNA (BIHAR)………………………………..Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI 2. GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUMBAI 3. CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER CENTRAL RAILWAY, CHHATRAPATI SHIVAJI TERMINUS, MUMBAI 4. DIVISIONAL RAIL MANAGER, (P) CENTRAL RAILWAY, NAGPUR 5. ASSISTANT PERSONNEL OFFICER (WELFARE) CENTRAL RAILWAY, NAGPUR 6. S.P.O. (RT), HEADQUARTERS OFFICE PERSONNEL BRANCH, MUMBAI CST……………….Respondents ----------- For petitioner:- Sri Tara Nath Jha, Advocate For respondents:- Smt Parul Ranjan, Advocate ------- 07. 06-07-2010 Heard the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed on 22nd December 2009 against order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 04.12.2008 passed in O.A. No. 253 of 2007. The said O.A. preferred by the writ petitioner was held to be beyond the jurisdiction of Patna Bench of the Tribunal but still some observations were made on merits. 3. The petitioner waited for a one full year and corresponded with the respondents. The respondents- authorities have shown through the counter affidavit that claim of the petitioner for alternative appointment in another post, according to the respondents is not tenable 2 in view of another recent policy decision of the Railway Board dated 25.05.2009 and a reply to this effect appears to have been given to the writ petitioner through a letter dated 09.07.2009. 4. On behalf of the petitioner arguments were advanced on the issue of jurisdiction as well as on merits. From the submissions advanced on merits, it is clear that now the petitioner has further cause of action and it is necessary for him to either challenge the provisions in the Circular dated 25.05.2009 contained in Annexure-B to the counter affidavit or to make out a case before competent forum that the said Circular will not apply to his case and that denial of relief to the petitioner by the authorities on the basis of such Circular is misconceived. In either case, further cause of action has arisen and these matters were not available when the issue was raised before the Tribunal and decided on 4th December 2008. 5. In the aforesaid factual background, we are not persuaded to merely decide the issue of jurisdiction and the same is left to the discretion of the petitioner who must select a Tribunal of proper jurisdiction to raise his grievances against the Circular of the Board dated 25.05.2009 or against fresh cause of action arising due to stand of the respondents based upon 3 said Circular. The writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievances as noticed above before Tribunal of appropriate jurisdiction in accordance with law. perwez (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)