C¢W//1 WRIT PEnno£:N(‘)/.W%Q%fé S) ‘ .7 mos PETITIONERS RESPONDENTS : APPROPRIATEWRITE DIRE€TIONAND!ORORDERS (1) PARTICULARSOFTHE PETITIONER : ' As mentioned above in the cause title. / @ @Ewm'w 3 kw (QHHATTISGARH) 1. Jagdamba Singh, aged about 3S‘yrs. S/o. Tejbahadur, R/o. ShankarN’aTgar Bilaspur, Thana—Torba, Tahsil ,Bilaspur , Distt. Bilaspux (CG) 2. Rajesh Kumar aged about 30 years S/o. Chhedilal, R/o. Babukholi, Bilaspur, Thana— Torwa, Tahsil - Bilaspur, Distt—Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. / Mohanlal Kori s/o. Alguram, R/o. Mohan Building, Thana- Torwa, ) Tahsil Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur C.G. 4./ Naruttam S/o.Anjordas R/o. Jairam Nagar, Thana-Torwa, Tah.—Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS / Union oflndia through the Senior 7 Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. /l)ivisi'ona1 Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, Bilaspur CG 3 . MGeneral Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach Kolkata—43, (W.B.) WRIT PETITION UNDERAR'AI‘ICLE 226OFTHE I CONSTITUTION OF 1NDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF 2w a. ' contd....2 IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATIIREAT BILASPUR ' l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI I.M.QUDDU$I & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL JJ. WRIT PETITION NO. 340/04 PETITIONER Union of India Vs RESPONDENT K. Babu Rae WRIT PETITION No.263/o4 PETITIONER Union of India Vs RESPONDENT D.K. Duffq WRIT PETITION NO.1760/06 PETITIONERS Union of India & oTher‘s Vs RESPONDENTS Mohd. Salim & o‘rher‘s WRIT PETITION [5l NO.3929/08 PETITIONERS Jagdamba Singh & 3 ofher's Vs RESPONDENTS Union of India & 2 o’rher‘s & WRIT PETITION. (s) NO . 5233/08 PETITIONERS Union of India 6i 2 others Vs RESPONDENTS Jagdamba Singh & 3 others Present: Mr. Vinay Harif, Sr. Advocafe wi’rh Mr‘. $.K. Mishra, Advoco're. : For The peTi’rioner in W.P. No.340/O4 Mr. P.K.C. Tiwory, 5r. Advoca’re : For The pefi‘rioner‘s in W.P. with Mr. Shashibhusan, Advocate (s) No.3929/2008 and for respondent Nos.1 6i 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 Sinho, Advocate : For the petitioner in W.P. [s] No.5233/08 and for the respondents in WIP. (S) . No.3929/08 Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate : For the respondents in W.P. Nos.340/’o4’, 268/04 & 1760/06. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 29*“ July, 2010) . Quddusj, J'; . Heard learned counsel for The parTies. .The above wriT peTiTions are being disposed of by This common order asv issue is involved in all These wrif pefifions is idenfical. However, for The purpose of fhis order facfs of Wr'if PeTiTion No.340/2004 are referred. . Brief facTs of The case are ThaT The respondenT herein was appoinfed as daily wage Casual Gangman in The esfablishmem‘ of resp‘ondenT-Railway w.e.f. 31.3.1990. In The appoinTmenT order of The respondenT iT has been specifically h1enTioned 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— deparTmen’T conducTed verificaTion_ of The cerTificaTes submiTTed by The respondenT. On verificaTion, The peTiTioner found ThaT The respondenT herein 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 10.5.1990 before The Tribunal by filing an original applicaTion bearing No.356/97 on The ground T‘haT his service has been .TerminaTed wiThouT any enquiry. The Tribunal disposed of The said original opplicaTion 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 reinsToTemenT. . In compliance of The Tribunal's order The peTiTioner appoinTed The Enquiry Officer for conducTing enquiry..The enquiry'was held on 20.8.98 (Si 08.09.98. The Enquiry Officer submiTTed ‘/ V/ 3;;4. ’ -‘ »’4, 1 his reporT To’ The effecT ThaT he could noT verify The / / cerTificaTe as The respondenf failed To produce The original certificaTe. The ’compefenT auThor‘iTy based on fhe reporT of The Enquiry Officer vide order daTed 01.12.1998 decided not 'ro reinsia‘re The respondenT. . Being aggrieved by The order daTed 01.12.1998 The respondenT hqs again approached The Tribunal by filing an Original ApplicaTion No. 323/99 and The Tribunal 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 order of The Tribunal is under challenge in This peTiTion. . 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 original applicaTion which is subjecT maTTer of This wriT peTiTion has been allowed by The Tribunal. In some of The originalapplicaTions 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. . 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. L Accordingly, we allow The wriT peTiTions, seT aside The orders passed by The Tribunal direcTing reins’TaTemenT 'of The respondenT—employees and paymenT of back wages and remiT «///' jyr, ’ ' A/v a /// The maHer‘ To *he fribunol for fresh ’decision. Needless To menfion Tha‘r These maf’rer‘s are old ma‘Her‘s and require expedi'rious disposal, fherefore, fhe Tribunal is requesTed ‘ro decide The some as early as possible, preferably wifhin a period of four monfhs. 9. Meantime, if is directed that sTaTus quo, as on Today, in respecf of fhe working of The respondenT—employees shall be mainfained 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 view 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. Sd/— N.K. AgraWal 3 § i Judge i i CerTified copy as per rules. / l Sd/— ‘ ‘ I.M.Quddusi Judge Roshari, a;e ’ - ;rwa a