IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC Nos.16557 & 16694, BOTH of 2009 ARVIND KUMAR JHA, S/O SHRI HARISH CHANDRA JHA, R/O VILLAGE-PARSAUNI, VIA- DUMRI, P.S. AND DISTRICT- SITAMARHI (BIHAR). -PETITIONER Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-1. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, GORAKHPUR (U.P). 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, AT AND P.O. HAZIPUR, DISTRICT-VAISHALI (BIHAR). 4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER, NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY, GORAKHPUR (U.P.). -RESPONDENTS ------- For the Petitioner : M/s Gautam Bose & Ratna Das For Respondents : M/s Mahesh Prasad No.1 to 4 & Anil Singh 02 02.12.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways. Both the writ petitions arise out of a common judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 02nd September, 2009 whereby O.A. no. 713 of 2004 and O.A. no. 524 of 2006, preferred by the writ petitioner, have been dismissed. Admittedly, O.A. no. 713 of 2 2004 became infructuous on account of an order dated 29th March, 2004 issued by the Railway Authorities yielding to the demand of the petitioner for transfer of his lien to the newly created East Central Railways at Hajipur. The real controversy has arisen thereafter on account of order challenged in O.A. no. 524 of 2006 which was issued on 27th January, 2006 whereby the order issued on 29th March, 2004 allowing transfer of lien was cancelled after an enquiry. According to the letter dated 27th January, 2006, after enquiry it was found that transfer of lien earlier allowed was without obtaining permission of the competent Authority of the Railways nor it was in accordance with Railway Board’s Circular dated 6th December, 1996 and other Circulars issued from time to time. The Tribunal, considering the case of the petitioner in detail, after looking into the records in view of the original copy of Annexure-7 to the writ petition, the letters dated 30th August, 2002 / 01st September, 2002, had concluded that in that letter the name of the writ petitioner has been added subsequently at serial no.1 and the typing is with a different type writing machine. Sri K.P. Singh, who figured 3 at serial no.1, has been shown at serial no.1(a). It has also taken note of the fact that in the forwarding letter by which the East Central Railway had forwarded twenty two letters of option to the North Eastern Railway, there is no mention that twenty three letters of option were forwarded. The Tribunal has relied upon the results of enquiry, conducted by the Railways, in which it was detected that the North Eastern Railway had issued letters to East Central Railway for transfer of lien of the petitioner without getting prior concurrence of East Central Railway for the transfer of lien. Subsequently, North Eastern Railways expressed regret and cancelled the letter by which lien of the petitioner was transferred by the impugned order. In the light of findings given by the Tribunal, as a writ Court, it is not possible for us to hold that there was any valid transfer of lien of the petitioner and he cannot claim any right on that basis either to continue over his lien in the East Central Railways or for transfer of the same in the East Central Railway or to claim right of hearing on that basis. We find no good reason to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal. The writ petitions 4 are, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) AAhmad