^' ~Vi-, BILASPUR Writ Petttfon No.3263tt006 CORAM: Hon'bte Shri S.R.Nayak, C. J. & Hon'bte Shri D.R.Deshmukh, J. Petitioner Respondents P. Ramtingeshwar Rao. S/o. Shri P. Pappa Rao, aged about 40 yeare, R/o Nayapara, Ganesh Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus 1. Union <rf toidia, Umwigh tts General Manager, Soutti Eastem C®t*alRailway, Klaspw 2. The DMsion Raitway Managw, Soi.rtt Eastem Rafhway. Bitaspur (C.G.) 3. Sr. Divisional Personal CTRcer, South Eastern Centrat Rsrihway, Bite^aur (C.G.) Shri Rajew Shrivastava, leamed counset for the petWoner. Shri Amit Choudhary, learned Standing Counsel for Raihma^.. ORALORDER (Passedon 17.07.2006) C.J. The following oral orcter <rf the Courtwas passed by S.tUWfAK, The petitk»nerwas initially appointed as casual gar^man vide orter dated 14.2.90. His appointment was sutqert to condltion ttat tte woridng certificate/past service certificate produced by Mm, if found fatee, his appointmentwould beterminated at anyfime and without any notfce. ttso happened that after his inifial appointment w.e.f. 14.2.90, ttie past service certificate produced by Bip petltioner was found to be a fake. That ted to the termination of the services of the peBtioner vkte order dated 29.8.1990. In the meanwhite, F.I.R. under Section 4201.P.C. for cheaUng /' and fbrgery was also lodged against him. The name of ths p^itioner was kept in the black list and the recruiCng agency dir^cted all recruiBng agencies in the Railway Adminishation not to engage the servfces of the petitioner in any capacBy anywhere. This direction issued by the recruiUng agency was allowed to become final. When Uie matterstood thus, it appeare that the petifioner teiking advantage of an order made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT.) dated 12.3.1997 passed in O.A.No.357/1981 and OANo.768/1991, (noved an appUcitfon being O.A.No.408/2004 bd'ore it The CA.T. by ib order dated 13.5.2004, disposed of thls O.A. without noBce to the respondent-AuBioriBes, directing that iftte petifioner makes a repr^entation, the same shoidd be consklered by the respondente withln a sBpulated time. Accordingly, the p^itioner made a representation to Ssnior Divlsional Personnd OfRcer (Raitwa^, 3"^ respondent harein, who disnussed the repressntaUon of the petitioner for appointment vide order dated 28.1.2005. 2. The peUtioner feeling aggrieved by the above onler of the ftird respondent. again fited (^iginal AppUcatfon No.383/20TO. The said OA was also dismlssed by the CAT. by its order dated 8.3^005 botti on merit as also on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, this writ petffion by ttie aggneved petiUoner. 3. We have heard teamed counsel for the parties and perused the material papere appended to the writ petifion. The.main contention of the ^ leamed counsel for the pefitfoner was ttiat flie C.A.T. ot^jht to have appreciated Uie fact that the simUariy circumslanced other emptoyees have been given appointments in pursuance of a direcUon issuedby the CAT. vide Hs order dated 12.3.1997 !n OANo.357/1991 and O.A.No.7%/1^1, and therefore, similar treatment should have been meted out to the petftioner also, and the refusal <rf the respondents to extend similar treatment would tantamount to an invicfious discrimination •t violating Article 14 postulates. It was ateo contended that the third respondent, before terminating ttie senrices of the pettUoner on 29.8.1990 did not gh/e any opportunily to the petitfoner to have his say in the matter. 4. Having heard teamed counsel for the parties, we cto not find any merit in the writ peffion. Before us, it is n<rt disputed by the teamed counsel for the petitioner that the past servtee cerWteate produced by ttie petiBoner was found to be a fake and the recruiUng agency had cBrected all Dhrisions of the Indian Railways not to offer any employment to the petitioner in future in any capacity. The said direction issued by e recNih'ng agency was not chattenged by the p^iGoner in any tegal proceeding. The peUtioner after a lapse of neariy 15 yeare, withoutany explanation whateoever for inordinirte delay in mowng thfe' applicatKm before the CAT., sought a direcfion ftom the C.A.T. to the thint respon^ent to extend similar treatment in terms of the direction issued by ^ the C.A.T. in its order dated 12.3.1997 macte in O.A .%7/1991 and O.A.No.768/1991 filed bysome ofthe simllarty cireumstanced employees. The C.A.T. has speciflcally dealt with that reque^ in its order and according to us quite righfly placing reliance on Uie judgment of the Apex Court in Bhoop Singh vs. Union of India and others refused the retM to the paiUoner on tte ground that the pefitioner is guilty of a serious delay and laches. In addition, it needs to be noticed that the applicante in O.A.No.357/1991 and O.A.No.768/1991 and the petifioner cannot be treated as equals for extending the benem of the order dated 12.3.1997 made in O.A.No.357/1991 for the simpte reason that whereas ttie applicants in OANo.27/99 and O.A.No.323/99 were diligent in asserting their rights and seeking legal remedies, the petitfoner herein slept over the matter for 14 long years, and tie was sitting on fence all the time waiting for ttie result of e previous litigatfon initiated by similarly clrcumstanced employees. Even after ttie judgment came, roughly for 7 years, ttre petitioner again stept over the matter. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the C.A.T. Is Justified in refUsir^ relief to the petihoner the ground ofdelayandlaches. 5. On merit too, the petitioner has no groundto succeed. Asalready pointedout (supra), the fact thatftepastservicecertificateproducedby 1, (1992)38cc 136. -^ the petitioner was found to be a fake and the recmiti'ng agency had directed alt Divisions in the Railways not to appoint the peUtioner in any capacity, is not seriously disputed before us. The discrefionary remedy under Article 226 of the ConsUtution of India cannot be extended to help such a pereon who is guilty of a serious mlsconduct. 6. Looking from any angte, this is not a case where we shoukf step in under Article 226 of Constitution and interfere with the impugned order of ArgoinL L the C.A.T. Writ PetHion fails and it is accordingly dismjssed. No costs. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Sd,/- ChiefJustici Judge