N 1 1 ^ •z6e Union of India, ^ Through : Generai Manager, South Eastern Central Railway, SEC Railway Premises Bilaspur (CG) •4 ^^\D' ..y ^/•••;^"^-"' ^•\^^ .-y' 1. D.K. Dutta, S/o Late KP Dutta ^ A§®dab®ut yaare, R/o Hemu Nagar, Nr. Agrawal Gudakhu Factory, Bilaspur (CG) 2. Ravindra Roy, S/o Shri RS Roy, A§ed-ebeu't .ycars, v-s^ R/o Qtr No: 132, Bapu Up Nagar(RS) Bilaspur (CG) \C\ 3. Govind Raju S/o Lt. K.RamaMurthy, < t^ ^" &»"' Agcd about yoare, '^' R/o 14-B/I, Babu Kholi (RS) Bilaspur Ralway Station, Bilaspur 4. Anil Kr. Mallick S/o Lt. L K Mallick, Agcd a'bout yeaffi, t^- Railway Qtr No: 987/3, North East Colony, Biiaspur (CG) 5. Brijlal S/o Jagan Agod about -yeaw, "^' village & PO: Mopka Kuti, Distt: Bilaspur (CG) HI6H COURT OF CHH/tTTISS/tRH A~\ BIL/tSPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QU&DUSI <S HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGAKWAt. JJ, VVRIT PETITION N0, 340/04 PETITIONER RESPON&ENT PETITIONER RESPONDENT PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS Vs Union of India K. Babu Rao WRIT PETITIQN N0.268/04 Vs Union of India t).K. Dutta WRIT PETITION N0.1760/06 Vs Union of India & others Mohd. Salim & others WRIT PETITION [S] N0.3929/08 PETITIONER5 Jagdamba Singh & 3 others Vs RESPONDENTS Union of India & 2 others 4 WRIT PETITION (s) N0^5Z33/08 PETITIONERS Union of India & 2 others Vs Jagdamba Singh & 3 others RESPONDENTS Present: \- fc..''. Vinay Harit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S.K. AAishra, Advocate For the petitioner in W.P. No.340/04 Mr. P.K.C. Tiwary, Sr. Advocate with Mr. ShaShibhusan, Advocate » For the petitioners in W.P. (s) No.3929/2008 and for respondent Nos.l &3 to 5 in W.P. [s] No.5233/08. Mr. P.S. Koshy, Advocate For the petitioner in W.P. No.268/04 Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate For the petitioner in W.P. [s] No.5233/08 and for the respondents in W.P. (S) No.3929/08 Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate For- the respondents in W.P. Nos.340/04, 268/04 & 1760/06. ^ /f-4^\ I 'va !% j ^.... v^y ^•;-r^f- OML OR&ER (Passed on 29th July. 2010) I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The above writ petitions are being disposed of by this common orderas issue is involved in all these writ petitions is identical. However, for the purpose of this order facts of Writ Petition No.340/2004 are referred. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent herein was appointed as daily wage Casual Sangman in the establishment of respondent-Railway w.e.f. 31.3.1990. In the appointment order of the respondent it has been specifically mentioned that if any of the certificates submitted by the respondent at the time of joining his services is found false, his service shall be terminated without any notice. The petitioner- department conducted verification of the certificates submitted by the respondent. On verification, the petitioner found that the respondent here.in had obtained the employment by producing fake certificate and as such, the respondent was discharged from the services vide order dated 10.5.1990. The respondent challenged the order dated A 10.5.1990 before the tribunal by filing an original application bearing No.356/97 on the ground that his service has been terminated without any enquiry. The tribunal disposed of the said original application vide order dated 26.6.1998 (Annexure P-4) with a direction to the petitioner department to hold enquiry and thereafter if it is found that the respondent herein is guilty of misconduct, the respondent will not be entitled for reinstatement. 4. In compliance of the tribunal's order the petitioner appointed the Enquiry Officer for conducting enquiry. The enquiry was held.on 20.8.98 <& 08.09.98. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the effect that he could not verify the y. (; '.<E^T"^i ry- .^Ks--^ certificate as the respondent failed to produce the original certificate. The competent authority based on the report of the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 01.12.1998 decided not to reinstate the respondent. 5. Being a9grieved by the order dated 01.12.1998 the respondent has again approached the tribunal by filing an Original Application No. 323/99 and the tr-ibunal relying on the ratio laid down by the tribunal in O.A. No.27/99 quashed the order dated 01.12.1998 and directed the petitioner herein to take back the respondent in service. The petitioner herein was further directed to grant back wages to the respondent from the date of the tribunal's order dated 12.3.1997 passed in O.A. No.357/1991. This ord&r of the tribunal is under challenge in this petition. 6. Before entering into the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the earlier decision made in similar petition by the tribunal, one of which is O.A. No.1152/04 decided on 17.8.2005, and contended that in that original application the tribunal dismissed the application of the applicant therein whose case is similar to that of the respondent herein, but the ortginal application which is subject matter of this writ petition has been allowed by the tribunal. In some of the original. applications the question of limitation had also been raised but the tribunal has ignored the same and decided the original application in favour of the respondent. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of case and without going into the merits of the case, we are of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the tribunal in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above. 8. Accordingly, we allow the writ petitions, set aside the orders passed by the trijaunal directing reinstatement of the respondent-employees and payment of back wages and remit, --A ''•?.. t; '.iaS£3''g, :/ V3fc*^ :^ '^•..^ss^^ the matter to the tribunal for fresh decision. Needless to mention that these matters are old matters and require expeditious disposal, therefore, the tribunal is requested to decide the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of four months. 9. Meantime, it is directed that status quo, as on today, in respect of the working of the respondent-employees shall be maintained till disposal of the original applications by the tribunal. The parties shall be at liberty to file documents in support of their respective cases before the tribunal. 10. In vieuv of above, the interim order passed earlier by this Court stands discharged. No order as to costs. 11. A copy of this order be placed in the record of other connected writ petitions. Certified copv as per rules. Roshan/- Sdi'- I.IVI. Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge