IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TWO THOUSAND AND SEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14990 of 2007 Between: Ghudulal Ismail Saheb S/o Late I. Hasan Saheb south Central Railway, Rail Nilayam (6th Floor) Secunderabad-500 071, R/o 8-3-228/678/250(a) Near Masjid karmikanagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chairman (rep UOI), Railway Board Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001. 2 The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilyam (3rd Floor), Secunderbad-500 071. 3 The Chief Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Rail Nilyam (4th Floor), Secunderabad-500 071 4 The Presiding Officer/Pension Adalat, Chief Personnel Officer, South Centrail Railway, Secunderabad. 5 The Controller of Stores, south Central Railway Rail Nilayam (6th Floor), Secunderabad-500 071. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus/ Certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, directing the Hon'ble Tribunal to: Nullify the dismissal orders against OA No. 658/2005 and against RA No. 16.2006. and may direct the Respondents to pay me my correct final settlement and may correct pension on my superannuation, duly considering all of the office orders in Existence and all of the Sanctions in existence, in my favour, duly rectifying all of the misappropriations and the anomalies etc. duly rectifying all of the misappropriations and the anomalies etc. duly setting aside the orders dated 16-04-2006 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench, Hyderabad in OA no. 658 of 2006 and declaring the same as void, abinitio null and void, and nonest in the eye of law and against the provision contained under Constitution of India and pass such other order or orders as deem fit and proper inthe circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.R.S.MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY WP No.14990 of 2007 Judgment: ( Per Sri GM, J ) Heard the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways, and also V. Srinivas, who was appointed as Amicus-curiae to assist the Court in the matter. The petitioner herein was appointed as temporary Clerk in the office of the District Controller of Stores, Hubli, on pay of Rs.60/- on 18-6-1958. Consequent upon the formation of South Central Railway with effect from 2.10.1966 options have been called for from the willing staff to serve in the heard quarters office of South Central Railway, Secunderabad. The petitioner along with three others have opted to come over to South Central Railways, Secunderabad and they joined in the office of the Controller of Stores, South Central Railway, Secunderabad on 19-10-1966 as Clerks and that consequent on the merger of Assistant Ward Keeper with the clerical cadre as Senior Clerks, the District Controller of Stores, Hubli issued orders placing the petitioner along with the other employees as Senior Clerks with effect from 21-9-1966. However, the benefit of up- gradation consequent on the merger of Assistant Ward Keeper with the Clerical cadre could not be implemented to the petitioner at Secunderabad as the assuming length of service in the scale of Rs.330-560 (RS) from 21-9-1966 to 2-10-1966 ( 12 days ) is less than three months therefore he was not granted the said relief. The petitioner was given option either to remain at Secunderabad as Clerk or go to Hubli for effecting the promotion as Senior Clerk. The petitioner opted to remain at Secunderabad. Subsequently, O.A.No.585 of 1988 was filed by the petitioner questioning the order dated 4-9-1987 issued by the Chief Personnel Officer, South central Railway before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad ( for short “the Tribunal”). The Tribunal on consideration of the matter, inter alia, observed that the writ petitioner was given orders as early as on 24-4-1984 in terms of the decision of the Railway Board taken in the year 1976, that order dated 4-9-1987 is once again a reiteration of the earlier order dated 24-4-1984, and therefore dismissed the O.A., on the ground of latches. The order passed by the Tribunal has attained finality. Later on, another O.A was filed by the writ petitioner i.e. O.A.No.658 of 2005 before the Tribunal contending that a mistake had occurred while sending his Last Pay Certificate and therefore he was not given the benefit of scale of pay which was applicable to the Senior Clerk and that there was in action on the part of the respondents in re-fixing his pension, by taking into account the last pay drawn by him in Hubli Division of the Southern Railway while absorbing him in the South Central Railway in the cadre of Clerk and some other miscellaneous issues. The Tribunal rejected his plea inter alia on the ground that as early as in the year 1988, in another O.A. it was held that his prayer was hit by limitation and that he had retired from service on 28.2.1992, and accordingly dismissed the O.A., holding that he would have been eligible had his earlier request been granted and that O.A. is barred by principle of res-judicata. Subsequently, Review Application No.16 of 2006 has been filed seeking to review the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that as early as in the year 1988 itself it was held that his prayer is hit by limitation and that the delay is further compounded by the fact that the applicant had retired from service on 28- 2-1992 and kept quiet on the question of pension and hence dismissed the Review Application also. Having heard both the sides, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk in DCOS office, Hubli in the year 1958 and later on his post was confirmed and that his post was upgraded as Senior Clerk and he became permanent Senior Clerk. However, his plea to consider him as Senior clerk on regular basis with effect from 21-9-1966 was not considered at Secunderabad division. The petitioner also points out that the then General Manager, on earlier occasion stated that up-gradation is certainly of a permanent nature and denying the benefit of his promotion amounts to penalizing him for having served the institution in the interest of administration and therefore he must get seniority and pay in the higher grade with effect from 21- 9-1966. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner essentially is for re-fixation of pay at the time of his transfer from Southern Railway to South Central Railway on 19.10.1966 and to rectify the anomaly in the fixation of his pay right from 21.9.1966 and consequential revision of his pension based on the revision of the pay scale to be effected at the time of his transfer. Curiously, the Tribunal on both the occasions did not consider those aspects, properly. However, as the earlier order passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.585 of 1988 has attained finality, and later O.A. filed by petitioner was also dismissed following the said order in O.A.No.585 of 1988 and on the ground of res-judicata, on consideration of the entire material on record, we do not see any merit to dislodge those findings in this writ petition. Be that as it may, on the basis of well settled principles, technical ground cannot come in the way of doing complete justice to the petitioner who after serving the Railways for considerable time is requesting the authorities for appropriate pension. The petitioner after retirement is roaming from one authority to another seeking at least the eligible pensionary reliefs. In fact, no averment was made by the respondents in the counter as to the eligible pension to which the petitioner is entitled for. In the circumstances, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents-Railway to consider the claim of the petitioner for pensionary benefits objectively and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before parting with the case, we place on record, the services rendered by Sri V. Srinivas, Advocate who assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae in this matter. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Kk _________________ -3-2008