XI-HC-22 T^ •<iwmt, QT&WW, hwwy snit^T Ti^q? ^PCs)...N.O.-S^&t/ 111CTI Shlicb"""""" """""""""""^ 200£j •IN^T""""""""""""""- an^i^r h-u* sn^y ?ti*iieh 'ylea '\- s/- 3(li?T?^(RIT'?lft!r hHGHGOURTOF GHHART Coram:- Hon'bLe Shri Dhirendra Mishra &^ Hon'bte Shri W.P. (Sl No. Petitioners(S) 1. Unio Respondents 1 Phod Shan No.2l Rly Steitton Road, Man^ndragarh, Distt. Korea (CG) Centtal Admini^ranve Tribunai, JabafourBench, Jabalpur (M.P.) WritPetitionunderArticte 226/2^7 ofthe Constitutionof Indla Present: ShriP.S.Koshy.couitselforttiepetitieners. Qral passed on 30' Per Dhirendra Mishra. J:- qil^Itn^'i ^Mcff ^ 'fe^l' Tf^R^R ^ariwi ail^l ISGARH AT BILASPUR tN. Chandrakar. JJ 221/2009 of India, Through ite Gene|ral Manager, South East Centi|al Railway, Biiaspur (CG) 2. The pivisiorial Raihway Manager (P) S|outh East Csntra! Raihivay, Bilas(>ur (CG) 3. The Itesistent Personal Officer, Souti|i Easi Cenh'al Raihway, Bi(ast>ur(CG) 4. Sr. Blivisional Personal Officer, Soutit East Central Raiiway, Bitast)ur(CG) Versusl Chand Yadav, S/o Gouri fear '512, Yadav, R,'o Qtr. Drder ofApril,2{X^ [^^feit Q»i<M~--2 'fc^) ^ -HC-22 sn^i^ii R-fi* an^i ^^i<^ ^rfitT ^ ^w--' '3'sg -<(i<<ici<<, ai'al'y'is, [»<MI«^< *<IWfT thlich 31T^?T •qsra? ^,?-<z^/^ 200 t—> I^^T' sn^i ?SIRIT ^ifOT This petition is directod as passed in originalapplication N6. Administrative Tribunal (heneefor partly allowing the original applica|Uon Chand Yadav, rejected h!s applicapon Group-C. However, white rejeGtinb has directed the petttioners/railwa^s Para-12 of the Impugned prder wh| jainst the order dated 29.082CX)8 g88 of 2008, whereby the Centrat th the 'Tribunal'), Jabalpur whife of the respondenl No.1 Phool ifion for regularizaUon ofthe postof the said appllcation, the Trilaunal to protwt his last drawn pay in lch reads as under- 'a^s "In view of ff»afeovfe; (fte^ cfeds?ons<s pfesentcase and tt^ unacceptebto excepf oS the applieant's paj fesponctofris to co^ appScanfat paia 7 being drawn by e TWD on acSTOC fcs^ reversion to th^ consequenSal bene^ to him withina etete (2) Heard leamed counsel for going through the impugned orde| Tribunal, we are of the opinion Vh^ with law and as per the judgment| af Badri Prasad and Others Vs. Supreme Court Cases 304, while disposing the identical p^ observed ttus:- 'sbl^tn^'T iTR^ff '£11^^Tf^T^R ^Ts^gqaii^r 2.- we ffncf ihat (he ratto of aiito/fcafcfe toSie ^cts of the prayer ofthe applteant is iat wgan^rng protecfiw? k. We, fterefore, c»fl9»ine i|»s«cter the piayer af Vte \v) (a) and pflotsrt fte pay lappfcan? wlvlewwKing as sts, 85 or. ths dafs of ftfe gmu[>D post, wlth fts and felease theanears peridfS afthii^ amnffss ^wn fts af ceiptofadppyafihisoKler. Ihepetitionersonadmissiwi. After andttie reasons assigned by the lit the order is strictlv in accordance lof tfte Supreme Courtin the matter lilnmn of India and offiiefs (2005) 11 wrterein the Hon'ble Supreme Court tition of the Raihwav Department f^n'ht [tf^^fia^ —$ [-HC-22 ^ ••,,'-"--" ^" 'TSI •^iiicii, snl'M'is, ("Kni'yy 3Tlt?T 'tRTO , '.S)....^.3^t^ 1 •^ 200^ *(WWI shlicn Rl'bttiSI' sn^i'qiT f<-li.<* s^v tft+iich y^d Priya sn^i^giwoto fck^ ev*n consilsfered "Wthout eSsturtimg, Tribunal ancftte High\ held entitted to ffie TTw pay last drawn sha//fce profectwf to Gmup 'D'post m They shaff be pflwnoffon to Gmup servfce spent by ffien^ Group 'C' post shall and oounted fewantfe serwce, if any, Gmup 'C'. lfthereis\ be refaxedm ftecasel Vwfetare, orders cf #ie ICoart theaiyss^nts ai@ ftj/towrng adcBttona/ nrftefe thero »nGoup 'C' po^ affier mefrrepaiBaSon Iffteir parent depaihnent. in the/r ium ior p' post The period of GR adhocbasisin pe glvwi due w^ghtaga tengtti af leqwsite for highw post in }any barafa^ that shafl \<^theappettants.. (3) For the aforesaid raasons, substance is dismissed atthe i Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge i& -%- ^I^I<n<ftrl Hi+i<rff'^ ^s^ ^^R ^ srtSgii an^r ttie wrtt petiUon belng wtthout admi^stonstage. Sd/- 4 R.N. Chandrakar Judge [^% ^fo^l