IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7390 of 2004 1. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI. 3. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI. 4. THE REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, 88A, SHRI KRISHNA NAGAR, PATNA-1. 5. THE DY. DIRECTOR (DOC), CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH, FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-1. ………… Petitioners Versus 1. MURARI PRASAD SINHA, SON OF LATE J.P. SINHA, M-3, SHRI KRISHNA NAGAR, PATNA PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE PATNA BENCH OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AS COURT MASTER (ADHOC). 2. CHANDRA BHUSHAN SINGH, SON OF LATE DHAJA SINGH, RESIDING AT YARPUR, PATNA, PRESENTLY WORKING IN THE PATNA BENCH OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA AS COURT MASTER (ADHOC) 3. KM. MARGARET BORGES, COURT MASTER, CAT, JABALPUR BENCH, 15, CIVIL LINES, CARAVAS BUILDING, JABALPUR-482001. 4. R.K. SAREEN, COURT MASTER, CAT, P.B., FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-1. 5. SANJEEV KUMAR, COURT MASTER, CAT, P.B., FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI. 6. VINOD KUMAR, COURT MASTER, JAIPUR BENCH, C-42, CIVIL LINES, BHAGAT VATIKA, JAIPUR. 7. B.K. SAHOO, COURT MASTER, CUTTACK BENCH, CAT, 4TH FLOOR, RAJASWA BHAWAN, CUTTACK-753002. 8. SMT. NIRMALA SETHUMADHVAN, C.M., CAT, MUMBAI BENCH, “GULESTAN BUILDING”, NO. 6, 3RD/4TH FLOOR PRESCOT ROAD FOR, MUMBAI-400001. 9. SMT. VINITA VIRMANI, C.M., CAT, P.B., FARIDKOT HOUSE COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-1. 10. N.S.N.RAO, C.M., CAT, P.B. FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-1. 11. HARISH CHANDRA, C.M., CAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH, SCO NO. 102-103, SECTOR 34-A, CHANDIGARH-160022. 12. SMT. INDRANI NATH, C.M. CAT, CALCUTTA BENCH, 2ND MSO BUILDING (11TH AND 12TH FLOORS), CSO COMPLEX, NIZAM PALACE, 234/4 A.J.C. BOSE ROAD, CALCUTTA 20. 13. SMT. SUNITA DUTTA, C.M., CAT, P.B. FARIDKOT HOUSE, COPERNICUS MARG, NEW DELHI-1. 2 14. SMT. A. VIJAYA LAKSHMI, C.M., ,CAT, HYDERABAD BENCH, IST FLOOR, HACA BUILDING, OPP. PUBLIC GARDEN, HYDERABAD- 500004. …………….. Respondents ----------- 9 27.01.2010 Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh for respondent nos. 1 and 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.7.2003 (Annexure- 1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in M.A. No. 431 of 2002, whereby direction has been issued to the concerned authorities to consider the cases of respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein in accordance with the observations in the order. 2. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 had preferred O.A. No. 60 of 2000, which was disposed of by order dated 19.12.2001 (Annexure-7), and the concerned authorities were directed to consider their cases for promotion on regular basis as Court Masters/Stenographer Grade-C, and to assign them their correct seniority. According to the petitioners herein, the order was complied with by order dated 3.1.2001 (Annexure- 6), in so far as respondent no. 2 is concerned, and was complied with respect to respondent no. 1 by order dated 28.9.2001 (Annexure-6/1). Respondent nos. 1 and 2 thereafter filed M.A. No. 431 of 2002, under the provisions of Rule 24 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, for effective implementation of the said order dated 19.12.2001 (Annexure-7). 3 The same has been disposed of by the impugned order, and the following direction has been issued “Under the facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for both the parties and particularly keeping in view the observations that we have made in the foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that this Miscellaneous Application can be disposed of with directions to the respondents to give a fresh consideration to the matter in terms of the directions given in O.A. no. 60/2000 on 19.12.2001 and ensure that these are implemented in letter and spirit. While so doing, they will keep in view the representations submitted by the applicants in regard to calculating and regularising their services as Court Masters/Stenographers Gr. „C‟ from the year 1994 when they were appointed on adhoc basis for the purpose of seniority so as to resolve the issues at their roots and to redress the grievances of the applicants in essence by drawing a fresh seniority list of Court Masters/Stenographers Gr. ‟C‟ while showing the names of the applicants at the proper place of their seniority in terms of the directions of the Court on 19.12.2001 in I.A. NO. 60/2000.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners raises an objection with respect to part of this direction wherein the concerned authorities have been directed to consider the calculation and regularisation of the services from the year 1994. In his submission, this is granting relief to respondent nos 1 and 2 beyond the scope of O.A. No. 60 of 2000, and unwittingly grants to them a larger relief. 4. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears to us that rule 24 of the Rules is identical to those engrafted in Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and 4 Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, it is open to the Tribunal to pass any order in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that such an order could not have been passed under the provisions of Rule 24 on such a miscellaneous application which is in the nature of interlocutory application. The contention is stated to be rejected for the reason that the Tribunal has comprehensively examined the cases of the parties on merits and passed the impugned order. We are of the view that the Tribunal really treated Misc. Appeal no. 431 of 2002 practically in the nature of an original application. Secondly, the Tribunal has not issued any positive direction to the concerned authorities. It is only a direction to consider their cases since 1994. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner has burdened this Court with an unwanted matter. It is on account of such an approach based on her-splitting arguments that the courts are sagging under the weight of arrears. 5. In the result, the writ application is dismissed with the clarification that we extend the time granted by the impugned order to pass the final order by a further period of three months commencing from today. pkj (S.K. Katriar, J.) ( Kishore K. Mandal, J. )