1 wp-9799-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9799 OF 2010 Shri Nasim Ali Abid Ali ....Petitioner Vs. The Union of India &Ors. ....Respondents Mr. D.V. Gangal, i/b. Vaishali Agane, for the petitioner. Mr. T.J. Pandian, for the respondents. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATE: 23RD DECEMBER, 2010. P.C. We have heard Mr. Gangal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Pandian appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioner was working at Ghodadongri and on account of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him the Divisional Railway Manager passed an order on 26th October, 2009 imposing the minor punishment of stoppage of increment of two years. However, a suo moto revision of the said order was undertaken and the Revisional Authority by 2 wp-9799-10 its order dated 6th August, 2010 has set aside the order of minor punishment and the petitioner has been imposed major punishment of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect as per order dated 6th August, 2010 3. Being aggrieved by the order of major punishment the petitioner has approached the Central Administrative Tribunal and filed O.A. No.683 of 2010. It came up before the Single Bench of the Tribunal on 21st September, 2010 for interim relief. It was contended before the Tribunal by the petitioner that the order of compulsory retirement was yet to be served on him because he was on the sick list and, therefore, he continued to be in service. The Tribunal issued notice to the respondents returnable within two weeks, but declined to grant any ad-interim relief. The O.A. was directed to be listed on 5th October, 2010. On 5th October, 2010 a Division Bench of the Tribunal heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the application came to be admitted. The respondents were granted six weeks time to file reply and further two weeks time was given to the applicant for rejoinder, if any. The O.A. came to be directed to be listed for final hearing on 1st December, 2010. The prayer for interim relief was declined. 4. It appears that on 1st December, 2010 the respondents did not file the 3 wp-9799-10 reply and we are informed that even as of now no reply has been filed by the respondents so as to oppose the original application. It is under these circumstances the petition has been taken out before us with a limited prayer to direct the status quo to be maintained in respect of the employment of the petitioner. Mr. Gangal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the pay slip as well as attendance register for July, August, September, and October, 2010 has urged before us that the petitioner continues to be in service and, therefore, he deserves to be protected by an order of status quo. 5. We called upon Mr. Pandian to place before us the record regarding the service of the order of compulsory retirement on the petitioner and the original postal envelope sent by Registered A/D. on 6th August, 2010 on the residential address of the petitioner shows that it was sought to be served by the postman on 30th August, 2010. The envelope further shows that an intimation was given on 30th August, 2010 so as to collect the said envelope from the post office and finally after waiting for one week it was returned. In addition to this, it appears that after the postal envelope was received back the respondents sought the personal service of the order of compulsory retirement and the record placed before us indicates that in the 4 wp-9799-10 presence of two witnesses the order was sought to be pasted on the Notice Board of the Ghoradongri Railway Station in the presence of the said witnesses on 29th August, 2010. The panchnama to that effect (photo-stat copy) is placed before us. Based on these documents it was urged by Mr. Pandian that the order of compulsory retirement has been served on the petitioner and he does not continue to be in service. 6. We must also note that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the applicant-petitioner is not in the service of the railways. 7. The issue as to whether the order of compulsory retirement has been served finally or not has to be decided by the Tribunal and we have considered these records only for our prima facie considerations so as to assess whether there is any case made out to show our discretion to pass an order of status quo. Mr. Gangal also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Moni Shankar vs. Union of India and Anr., (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 819. 8. We are satisfied that the Tribunal was not in error in declining the prayer for interim relief and, therefore, this petition must fail at the 5 wp-9799-10 threshold. The petition is rejected. 9. We direct the respondents to ensure that the reply is filed within one week from today so that the Tribunal proceeds with the application for final hearing. The petitioner will submit his rejoinder within one week after the reply is filed by the respondents as directed by us. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)