IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12707 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR 3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR 4. THE DEPUTY C.P.O. EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR, THE THEN SR. D.P.O. EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY,SONEPUR 5. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR…. .. PETITIONERS Versus 1. SANT KUMAR , SON OF LATE JAI NARAYAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SIRKUHIA, POST OFFICE JAILPUR, DISTRICT- MUZAFFARPUR 2. SHANKAR PD. SON OF RAM NATH PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KARAGOLA ROAD, P.O. KARAGOLA ROAD, GURU BAZAR BASI NAGAR, KATIHAR 3. MANOJ KUMAR, SON OF NAGESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AULIABAD, P.O. HAYAGHAT, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA 4. RANDHIR KUMAR, SON OF MAHESHWAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE GUSHREMA, P.O.GUSHREMA, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA 5. MD. SALIM, SON OF MD.JAKHIRUL HASSAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BALBHADRAPUR, P.O. GAOPUR,SAMASTIPUR 6. SHYAM DEO, SON OF GOPAL PRASAD GUPTA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAYAGHAT BAZAR, P.O. HAYAGHAT BAZAR, DISTRICT- DARBHANGA 7. DEEPAK KUMAR, SON OF LATE BHULAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANIYARPUR, P.O. MANIYARPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI 8. BALISTER KUMAR, SON OF LATE BHULAN SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANIYARPUR, P.O. MANIYARPUR, DISTRICT- VAISHALI 9. SUDHIR KUMAR, SON OF SURESH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- NARDIPUR, DISTRICT- PATNA. 10. NAND KISHORE SON OF DEVENDRA PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAIJALPUR NAYATOLA, DISTRICT-SARAN 11. SUNIL, SON OF RAM NAWMI SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BENIPUR, P.O. KARANTA, DISTT. PATNA 12. RANJAN KUMAR, SON OF BHUJAWAN MANJHI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAM NAGAR, P.O. SARDHA, DISTT. SARAN 13. MADAN PRASAD, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD RAI, VILLAGE- CHAK GOSA RAJAULI, P.O. RAJAULI, DISTRICT- VAISHALI. 14. DAYA NAND SON OF SAKALDIP RAI, VILLAGE- SUBHAI NARIJABAD, P.O. SUBHAI, DISTT. VAISHALI.. RESPTS. ------------ 2 2 9-8-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for private respondents. By the impugned order dated 9th September, 2005 contained in annexure-5 the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna allowed O.A. No. 412 of 2003 in respect of applicant nos. 1 to 12 after rejecting the defence of the Railway authorities that the claim of the applicants was based upon forgery in the list of selected candidates for appointment to the post of Safaiwala. Against the order contained in annexure-5 the petitioners preferred a review application bearing R.A. No. 49 of 2006 along with a limitation petition bearing M.A. No. 79 of 2007. The said review was dismissed for default in appearance and hence M.A. 201 of 2009 was filed for restoration of the review application. The other impugned order dated 15th September, 2009 shows that the review application was pressed by learned counsel for the applicants on merit but was dismissed on the ground of limitation. A careful reading of the order dated 15th September, 2009 discloses that as per its cause title, R.A. No. 49 of 2006 was considered along with only the restoration 3 application bearing M.A. 201 of 09 and not the limitation application i.e. M.A. 79 of 2007. To a large extent the fault in not pressing the application would rest on the counsel for the petitioners who were applicants in the review application. On looking at the affidavit in support of the review application which has been annexed as annexure-6, we have noticed that the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer had sworn the affidavit as early as on 15-12-2005 seeking review of order dated 9th September, 2005 passed in O.A. No. 412 of 2003 but again due to apparent negligence the actual filing of the review application was made on 2-6-2006 as finds mention in the impugned orders dated 15th September, 2009. Considering that a serious issue relating to alleged forgery in official records of the Railways was involved and the concerned officer had sworn affidavit in support of the alleged forgery, in our view, these matters require consideration on merits under review jurisdiction in accordance with law. The limitation petition bearing M.A. No. 79 of 2007 is also, no doubt, mentioned in the last sentence of impugned order the dated 15th September, 2009, 4 but it has not been discussed on merits and as the cause title reveals it does not appear to have been taken up for consideration on 15th September, 2009. Taking an over all view of the entire matter and in the interest of justice, we are satisfied that the limitation petition bearing M.A. No. 79 of 2007 ought to have been allowed by the learned Tribunal and it should have considered the review application on merits. Hence, without considering on merits the order contained in annexure-5 dated 9th September,2005, the impugned order dated 15th September, 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Tribunal for fresh consideration of R.A. No. 49/2006 on its own merit in accordance with law. This order is however, subject to payment of a cost of Rs.2,000/- to the private respondents through their counsel within a period of four weeks from today. Since the matter has remained pending for a long period before the Tribunal, it is directed that the parties should appear before the Tribunal with a copy of this order 5 within four weeks and thereafter the Tribunal should fix the next date for hearing the matter on merits and dispose of the review application as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( B.P. Verma, J)