51 HIGH C.OURT OF CHHAniSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No.1944/2006 CORAM: Hon'ble Shri S.R.Nayak, Chief Justice & Hon'bieShri D.R.Deshmukh, J. Petitioner Respondents R. P. Mondal, Office Superintendent Grade- 11, Champa, Sto Shri S.K.Mondal, WQ C/& Shri T.N.Mondal, Kalchuri Vicfya Mandir, Tonva, BILASPUR (CG). Versus 1. Union of India, through its General Manager, South Eastem Central Railway, BILASPUR. 2. Divisional Raitway Manager, South Eastem Central Railway, B1LASPUR. 3. Dlvision Electrical Engineer (East) South Eastem Central Railway, BILASPUR 4. Sr. Divisionaf Personnef Officer, South Eastern Centrat Railway, BILASPUR. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, (earned counsel for the peb'tioner. Smt. Hamida Siddiqui, leamed counsel appears for Shri Amit Chaudhary, Standing Counse) for Railways. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 24.07.2008) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R.NAYAK, C.J. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing for ths respondents raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition under Articte 226/227 of the Constitution oflndia. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought not only the quashing of the Order of the Cenfra! Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (C.A.T.) passed in O.A.No.455/2004 (Annexure P/1) but also an Order dated 18.10.2005 (Annexure P/5) passed by Sr. Divisional Engineer 5 (Central), S.E.C.R.. Bilaspur and Order dated 9.11.2005 (Annexure P/6) passed by Sr. Divt. Personnel OfRcer, S.E.C.R. Bilaspur respectively. 3. Having heard tearned counset for the parties, we find force in e submission of the tearned counsel appearing fbr ttie respondents that the present writ petftion is not maintainabte. The petitioner on attaining age of superannuation retired on 31.3.2002 wrtien he was holding fte post of Superintendent Grade-11. The petitioner was not paid the Death-cum- Retirement Gratuity QXRG) amount to Rs.1,73.457/-. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said refusat of the Department had initially instituted Original Application No.709/2003 complaining that the Department refused to pay DCRG without assigning any reason and without giving him any opportunity of being heard. The said Original Applteation was disposed of by the Tribunal directing fte respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner within three months. It appears that the Department again rejected e claim of the petitioner by order dated 8.3.20024 without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to have his say in the matter. The petitioner being aggneved by ttie said order dated 8.3.2004 again instituted Original Application No.455/2(X)4 before the CA.T. This apptication was attowed by the Tribunal by its ordsr dated 17t August 2005 and the impugned order dated 8.3.2004 was quashed on ftie ground that the said order was made without giving any opportunity of being heard to the pstitioner. While doing so, fte Tribunal, however, had directed the respondente to take appropriate decision in the matter after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner within a period of three months. After disposal of the above OA.No.455Q004 on 17* ^-^""T. '"I ^ August 2005, as directed by the Tribunal, Senior Divisional Engineer (Central), S.E.C.R., Bilaspur, ttw 4 respondent herein, after giving opportunity to the petitiorrer to have his say in the matter, passed athe order on 18.10.2005 directing thus: "Hence, the total amount of recovery from Sri R.P.Mondasl is Rs.2,37,825/- and wtiere as Sri R.P.Mondal's DCRG is only Rs.1 ,73,457/- and the shorUall amount of Rs.64,368/- may bs recovered from Sri R.P.Mondal's pension relfef by obtaining sancd'on of the competent authority." 4. This was followed by the order of Senior Divisional Personnel OfRcer. S.E.C.RIy. Bilaspur dated 9.11.2005. This writ petition was presented in this Court on 12.04.2006, as already pointed out, not onty assailing ttie validit/ of ths Otder af the CA.T. dated 17"' August 2005 in O.A.No.455/2004 but also Annexures P/5 and P/6. It is trite that quashing of Annexures P/5 and P/6 by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not arise at this stage. If the petitioner is aggrieved by Annexures P/5 and P/6, he has to work out his legal remedies before the C.A.T. by instituting Original Applications in the first instance. However, it is the contention of the learned counsel fbr the petitioner (hat Annexures P/5 and P/6 are consequent to the impugned ordw <rf the CA.T. dsfted 17t^ August 2005, and theretore, ths writ psBSon is maintainable. It is true that if the Order made by the C.A.T. in O.A.No.455/2005 could be quashed on any permissible legal ground, the consequential orders Annexures P/5 and P/6 may be regarded as consequential and they would also fall to the ground. We have more than one reason not to entertain this writ petition at this stage. If we may say so, the petitionerhas been abusing the process of law by filing this wrlt petition directly in this Court. In O.A.No.455/2004, as we could see from ^^' r-i paragraph 3 of the judgment, the only contention urged before the C.A.T. was that before the adverse order was made on 8.3.2004 no opportunlty of hearing was given to him. Of course, it was also urged that withholding of DCRG is against the settled legal position and is violath/e of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of Indla. How the reftjsal violated the Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution is not forthcoming from the impugned order. Be that as it may, if the petitioner had urged the ground that the Department had no legal authority to withhold DCRG and that contention was not considered by the Tribunal in its order, the petitioner would have moved an application before the C.A.T. for review and called upon the Tribunal to meet his argument in that regard. The petitioner did not do so. The facts. as laid before this Court, would go to show that the petitioner availed of opportunity, as directed by the Tribunal, to put-forth his case before the Department, and he was sitting on fence till Orders (Annexures P/5 and P/6) were issued. It is noticed that even thereafter, the petitioner did not approach this Court with ditigence to assail Annexures P/5 and P/6. Annexure P/6 was issued on 9.11 .2005 whereas this writ petition was filed on 12.4.2006 after lapse ofneariy 5 months. Not a word of explanation is offered for this delay. The petitioner cannot approbate and reprobate. Having contended before the C.A.T. that an adverse order was made against him without hearing him, and later having availed of opportunity of being heard before the Department, now it is not open for the petitioner to urge the ground which was not urged before the C.A.T. earlier for the decision-making. There is no necessity for us at this stage to decide whether Annexiires P/5 and P/6 are justified and legat, in the facts and circumstences of the case and the law applicable to the case. If the Orders at Annexures P/5 and P/6 are not valid and iltegal, the petitioner 55 s can work out his legal remedies by instituting Original Application before the Tribunal. That liberty is reserved. Subject to theabove liberty, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge v