IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5003 of 2008 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAZIPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, E.C.RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 3. THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, E.C.RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 4. THE SENIOR D.F.M., E.C.RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR 5. THE SENIOR D.M.E., E.C.RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR ………….PETITIONERS. Versus MD.SANAULLAH KHAN, SON OF LATE MOZIMULLAH KHAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARAINPUR, POLICE STATION- HOMRAN NAGAR, DISTRICT- WEST CHAMPARAN, BIHAR …………….RESPONDENT. ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. M.P.Dixit, Avocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Dixit, Advocate Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate ----------- 8. 13.01.2009 The Union of India and its Officers have preferred this application for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4th of April, 2007 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.760 of 2004. By the impugned order, the Tribunal had directed the petitioners to recalculate the amount of gratuity taking into account the finding of the Tribunal in O.A.No.389 of 1992. The wife of the deceased employee earlier filed O.A.No.389 of 1992 for pensionary benefit, which was disposed of by the Tribunal by order dated 12.5.1994. The Union of India resisted the prayer on the ground that required number of years of service was not rendered by her husband. This plea of the petitioner was considered and ultimately the Tribunal held as follows : “16. In the conspectus of facts and circumstances, where it is evident from the 2 documents filed by the parties, and found as a fact that the deceased ex-employee late Khan was appointed in Railway service in the year 1957 and he continued to remain in service upto the year 1991 inasmuch as he was posted as loco-shed peon vide order no.49 dt. 29.4.91 passed by the respondents, it must be held that the deceased ex- employee Shri Khan died in service and had completed about more than 33 years of service with the Rly. Administration and, as such, his family is entitled to the payment of pension and all other pensionary benefits besides G.P.F. contribution together with arrears of pay, if any, payable to the deceased employee.” When the claim for gratuity was made, the appellants contended that the employee had not rendered continuous service of more than 33 years. This was negatived by the Tribunal. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that though the appellant is bound by the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the earlier proceeding i.e. O.A.No.389 of 1992, but the finding of the Tribunal cannot be construed to mean that the employee had continuously worked for more than 33 years of service. We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned Counsel. The finding of the Tribunal in the earlier proceeding has been reproduced above and while recording the aforesaid finding the plea of the employer of break in service was taken into consideration and on consideration of the same it was held that the employee “was appointed in Railway service in the year 1957 and he continued to remain in service upto the year 3 1991” and hence rendered more than 33 years of service. Petitioners are bound by this finding, hence, We do not find any justification not to treat this period for the purpose of gratuity. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order had committed no error. We do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, ACJ.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Narendra/