2 XI-HC—78 7SS -sil'yi")--!; »nl*)<|S. fs|<l]<-!^< *11*WH B»*tl<t) .........^^ ^pQ snyi '<RW ('^gai^i) •'W/\ ^T f'i'~fW 7Iqi 3lri!T! »1IT3r \ TOWR^lfCTa^*?! W.P. Nlo.2171/2004 PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: 'viiiynii iiiCTf 4 fs^t <r<<^i< ^T >»tRl*t'aff^f - T. AppaRao, S/o Shri T. Ramulu, Aged around 42 years, Employed as Pipe Line Khalasi, under I.Q.W./S.E.C. Railway - Balod, Resident of: Railway Quarter No._ Railway Colony, Dallirajhara, District Durg (CG) ^/ersus- Union of India, Through The Secretary, Mlnistry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. The General Manager, South Eastem Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, G.M. Office, Bilaspur (C.G.) The Divisional Raifway Manager, South Eastern Centrai Railway, Raipur Division, D.R.M. Office, Raipur (CG) The Divisional Personal Officer, South Eastern Central Railway, Raipur Division, DPO Office, Raipur (CG) The Sr. Divisional Engineer (West), South Eastern Central Railway, Ralpur Division, DEN Office, Raipur (CG) The Assistant Divisional Engineer, ^^h-f^^^^^ff r 'TS? -*ll<llcl^, a'nl+f'Ko, ['Knwy «II*ICTIWRW"""""""•""••"•"""-••^!^200 Sfl^it ~W (fp\yv'l) ^n^WRT'^TW 1crai 011^1 iftti '<: vwni< dR?fl dft^<i -A- PETITIONERS: RESPONDENTS: Wttffi Wo diiiicwi <Rnistra—FS/9S—\\lvovtf 7.. 8. W.P.N^ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 'ypii^t^i'i ^w^t^ f^(^ ^p*it$i< ^T ^RN 1ail^<l South Eastem Central Railway, Bhilai-3, District Durg (CG) The Inspector of Works, South Eastern Central Railway, Durg, District Durg (CG) The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Caravs Building, South Civil Llnes, Jabalpur (M.P.) And i.1767/2005 Union of India, Through The General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur (CG) The Divisional Railway Manager, S.E.C. Railway / Raipur (C.G) The Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Raipur (CG) The Sr. Divt^-Engineer (West) S.E.C. Railway, Raipur (CG). The Asst. Divl. Engineer, S.E.C. Railway, Bhilai (Durg) The Inspecfor of Worte, S.E.C. Railway, Durg (CG) : -\fersus- Shri T. Appa Rao, S/o Shri T. Ramulu, Employed as Pipeline XI-HC—78 ~-^^] ^ t??ftSFT ^^ '^^VS^T ^•S( •<)i--i"^--{. ®TfIWT-S. NWWI flWrei TFt 200 Wff '^V (li?(3lS,'<) WIIW ^lfpf SC*^ -•3 2] (Writ Petitions under Article; Division Bench: Hoh. Shri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon. Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. 17-4-2009:- Shri B.P. Rao, counsel fo| and counsel for respondent No.1 1!M<rfCT<rtt HI*l<lf ^ [s^l ^fo'rt^R ^ililTO 311^1 Khalasi, under IQW/SECRIy/ Balod, Posted at Dalrajhara, Dist.: Durg (CG) The Centrat Administrative Tribunal, Through the Registrar, CAT / Bench at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. 26/227 ofthe Constitution of India) r the petitioner in W.P. No.2171/2004 inW.P.No.1767/2005. Shri P.S. Koshy, counset for respondents No.1 to 7 in W.P. No.2171/2004 and counsel forthe petitioners inW.P. No.1767/2005. W.P. No.2171/2004 preferred by petitioner Shri T. Appa Rao against the Railwaysand WP. No.1767/2005 preferred by Union of India through SECR against Shri T. Appa Rao, the petitioner in other petition, are being disposed of by this common order, as the subject matter of both the writ petitions is entitlement of back wages of Shri T. Appa Rao, Railway employee. Petitioner Shri T. Appa Rao in his petition has impugned the order of Annexure-A/11 dated 24-9-2003 passed in O.A. No.223/2003 .•D'ur.^'-h'pr'?' "3^ •*{nwi, ®Ti1«'i<o,I'K'ii'Hy IIICTI (BNi<n"""" ••—•••••••••••••—-••-•••••^200 ail^ifl TR?i' ('jqla*"^) 'AII^Iw ft*<iw WT oti^ ti**tiq* -^. ^ttii^tK v\^ <ffl^v -^ whereby his original application t Administrative Tribunal (for short Divisional Personnel Officer, Sout decide representation for the relief days with a further rider that arre one year before filing of the p whereas, W.P. N0.1767/2005 pr against the order of Annexure-P/1 Original Application No.514/200 respondents have been directed to of Fundamental Rule 54 within a receipt of copy ofthe order. Brief facts ofth^e case are Pipe Line Khalasi under the SECF pay maintenance @ Rs.750/- pe under Sectioh 125of the Cr.P;C. Ourg,vide order dated 20-12-95 Judicial Maglstrate issued recover the applicant and directed the Rail salary. Accordingly, recoverjeswe July, 2000 and the same continu Railways failed to remit the amou Shri T. Appa Rao, v/as detained f Wltl^Kt^b -1,00,1 flilli'M^I't *imv^ ^ ls^'1 <^i^i< ^l'Offit** ^tV ^as been disposed of by the Central [the Tribunal') with a direction to the |i Eastern Central Railway, Raipur to Ipertaining to arrears, if any, •r'.ithin 15 ^rs wouid be confined to a period of ^tition, apart from other directions, ^ferred by the Railways is directed dated 10 January, 2005 passed in (4 by the Tribunal whereby the 1 regularize intervening period in terms Iperiod of 3 months from the date of tfiat Shri T. Appa Rao was posted as t at Durg Station. He was directed to t" month to his wife in a proceeding |by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st:Class, Subsequentty, on 19-6-2000, the ]/ certificate by attaching the satgry of jways to recoyer due amount frfim his jre made @ Rs.1667/- per month frem i^d up to February, 2001 . Since the iht to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, tr one month from 8th March, 2001 to ,00,000. '3^?'^irara^i, a^IlwKo, (<i<ii'Mli< •tWCTI tl>*ll«h "Wt 200 •*|A!(I 'SWT ('pla^y) an^i lii ft-iiii Wff on^n B*^iq* .VKlj tt^niW 4tfi^ill 3n^)(T <114l^l<t VSi^^SI <i*i<rf^i<ftiw^i if fe<^t <f<<^i< ^'sdRwsn^B' 81" April, 2001. After the release f<om civil pnson, he reported on duty on 9-4-2001. However, he was not placed under suspension w.e.f. ^-3-2001 and his deemed suspension was also revokedw.e.f 8-5-2001 same was disposed of on 24-9-20p3, thereafter he was instructed to join his duties. Accordingly, Shri T. A| on 18-12-2003. Petitioner Shri T. Appa Rac| allowed to work. The applicant was He filed O.A. No.223/2003 and the >pa Rao reported before I.O.W., Balod has challenged the directions passed in O.A. No.223/2003 whereby th^ relief pertaining to arrears hss been confmed to a period ofone year (lefore filing ofthe petition whereas, in W.P. No.1767/2005, the petition^rs have impugned the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.514/2p04 whereby they have been directed to regularize.the intervening perio<|l in terms of Fundamental Rule 54. Shri B.P. Rao, learrted (?oi(nsel appearing on behalf ofpetitioner Shri T. Appa Rao, submitted that the applicant has a recumng cau confined the relief for :a period ol the Tribunal even after conctudiog that pe of action for filmg-the petition, has one year before filing of thepetition, which is on the face of it erfoneou^. On the other hand, Shri P.^ Koshy, tearned counsel appeanng on behalf of the Railways, submittee} that the petitioner was placed under deemed suspension on account df his imprisonment for a period of more than 48 hours in jail. The petitiontr was served with a notice of deemed suspension as well as revocationj of the suspension order on 8-5-2001. -1,00,000. k- '3^ •<<111C1<1, SITJI'M'IS, fqcll+fy *II*ICTI a>*<i<ti •—•••"-•"•••-•"•- ••••--•••^200 3II^I ^I^? (1P^^tt) ^tdlW flfcfl 3n^fT -k- The petitioner instead of acceptin duties, remained unauthorizectly Tribunal even after recording the paragraph-5, has directed the R period in terms of Fundamental contrast to what has been held ir the respondents have been direct in terms of Fundamental Rule 54 case. We have heard learned coui ln O.A. No.223/2003, the decide representation of the petiti of arrears of salary, however, hii period of one year before filing of, our opinion, the Tribunal after ente that petitioner Shri T. Appa Rao confining entitlement to ohe yea> been left to th:e discretion of the back wages on the facts and circu So far as impugned ord concerned, from bare perusal ol nottoe that the Tribunal has obser part of the respondents in not sen' 4i1<)I^*i)-1 *imvfi ^ f^^i <f^f'^i< ^raifiw sil^r ^ both the orders and reporting to the |absent for a long period. Learned [above finding in O.A. No.514/2004, in [ailways to regularize the ir'ervening Rufe 54, which is on the face of it in paragraph-5. He further argued that ^d to regularize the intervening period which is not applicable in the instant (isel for the parties. |respondents have been directed to t)ner for the claim towards entitiyment entitlement has been conffned to a |the application before the Tribunal. In (rtaining the above petitlon arfd holding h^id recurrtng cause of action, direct'on was not justified and it shoufd have [Railways to decide entitlement to his Instances of the case. ^r passed in O.A. No.514/2004 is pargraph-5 of the above order, we ted that it may be error/mistake on the <)ing the amount of maintenance to the ^ 1 TS? •<inm^, wvAwie, hviwy. iiini <n*<i«n -W( 200 ^iAfl i^'n (1?ty»4) an^nwtow Wff •aif^fl a>*( Vlthfifl $jlfl; tftfll^K tlftt^ Otl^ -^- *t>i<iI<n<Iti iiM<rff^ fel^l <fat$i< ^T3iR(H31I^CT concerned Court in due time, a^ a result, Shri T. Appa Rao, was detained in civil imprispnment for ^ period of one month. However, his refusal to accept the order dated) 7-5-2001 pertaining to his deemed suspension and deemed revocaticjn of suspension was not lawful. He should have accepted both the i^rders and if aggrieved, could have chatlenged the same in an ap[}ropriate Forum. The respondents 18-12-2003. The applicant coutd not permitted him to join duties on show anycogent reason on the p^ him to join duties. It has been obs^rved in paragraph-6 thus:- "After considering all tl|ie facts and circumstances, we are of the consi|dered opinion that in the interest of justice, the Fundamental Rule 54, rt of the respondents for not allowing •esponoents are directed to regularize the interv^ning period in terms of within a period of 3 months fromthe date of reGeipjt of a copy of this order." After recording adverse findi()g against employee Shri T. Appa Rao in paragraph-5, the Tribunal, withopt asslgning any reason for condoning uniawful act of Shri T. Appa Rap, llirected the Railways to regularize the intervening period in terms of FR adverting to the retevant provision in the instant case. 54, which cannot be sustained. We also find that reference to FR $4 has been made casualty v/ithout ^, which are, admittedly, not attracted -1,00,000. T°? •<ii<(i<n<f, ®fl1<i'ic,[qciwy N11CTI g,^|q,-••••"••--•••"•---—"—-•""•^f^ 2()0 311^71 'T^? (1<lij*IST) <fll^I ^T ft'II+' ?rai <HI^<I it**ii4* 3an/e ^'w'IWtR ^Q 3fl^i In the result, 1. In W.P. No.2171/2004, it Tribunal was not justified in confine entitlement of arrea 2. WP. No. 1767/2005rited b^t dated 10-1-2005 passed b^ hereby quashed. No ordersas to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judgs <bRte<ft;I J\Wv^^ 'fe1^ •iF;>f^« ^ afiRpr <*ti^l is held that in D.A. No.223/2003 the issuing directions to the respondents to •s for a period of one year. the Railways is allowed and the order the Tribunal in O.A. No.514/2004 is Sd/. R.N. Chandrakar Judge -^