IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13024 of 2010 RAM BILAS PATEL SON OF SHRI BAIDYA NATH PATEL, WORKING CARRIAGE KHALASI, UNDER SECTION ENGINEERING (C &W) E.C. RAILWAY, MUZAFFARPUR …………………………………….PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH G.M., E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, E.C., RAILWAY, SONPUR 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (PERSONNEL), E.C. RAILWAY, SONEPUR 4. RAJ NARAYAN LAL S/O LATE NAGESHWAR RAI WORKING AS CARRIAGE KHALASI UNDER SECTION ENGINEER (C&W) E.C. RAILWAYS, MUZAFFARPUR ……………………………….RESPONDENTS ----------- 8 10/03/2011 This writ application has been filed against the order dated 16.2.2010 passed in O.A. No. 128 of 2003 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. The relief before the Central Administrative Tribunal Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) sought by the petitioner was that the respondents should be directed to declare the applicant permanent in the post of Engine Cleaner along with consequential benefits including arrears from due date like similarly situated employee Awadh Lal Gupta. The said contention of the petitioner was rebutted by the Railways by filing written statement stating that due to non-availability of work in the Engineering Department the applicant had been engaged on 21.6.1985 as 2 substitute Engine Cleaner. It is further stated that due to introduction of diesel traction on closure of Steam Loco Sheds in the Railways, a large number of Railway staff including the petitioner who were working as substitutes were declared surplus and redeployed in the same scale of pay in the Carriage Department as Substitute Khalasi. Thereafter, the petitioner was regularized in the year 1997 when the screening test for regularization was held and the petitioner was empanelled for regularization vide order dated 30.6.1997. It is also stated that the respondent authority held the screening test for regularization of Substitutes in the year 1988 in which 22 candidates were declared successful. In the said screening test aforesaid Awadh Lal Gupta was placed at serial No. 19 whereas the petitioner was placed at serial no. 107 and that was the reason why the petitioner was not empanelled at that stage. In the meanwhile Steam Loco Sheds in the Railways were closed and Diesel Traction was introduced. The Tribunal did not agree with the contention raised by the applicant and the same was rejected. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised more or less same contentions as raised 3 before the Tribunal and argued that the petitioner was succeeded in the screening test and ought not to have been given promotion at par with said Awadh Lal Gupta who was regularized on 30.6.1992. After going through the records, we find no material documents placed before this Court by the petitioner to substantiate that he was succeeded in the screening test and he did not rebut the statement that they have been declared surplus on closure of Steam Loco Sheds of the Railways and the petitioner has not questioned the regularization of his services as substitutes and having accepted the said action of the respondent in declaring him substitutes and now the petitioner cannot turn around and claim regularization from 1992 onwards at par with Awadh Lal Gupta. In view of the above facts, we are of the opinion that there is no irregularity or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and it needs no interference of this Court. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) avin