IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8022 of 2007 RAM DARESH PD.YADAV Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- 2 12.5.2008 This application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 1.9.2004 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the tribunal”) in O.A. No.12 of 1999, whereby it had allowed the application filed by respondent no.5 herein. Mr.Vinod Kumar appears on behalf of the petitioner and Union of India is represented by Mr. Sarvadeo Singh. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the service of respondent no.5 was terminated vide order dated 27.5.1998. He filed O.A.No.12 of 1999 before the tribunal, inter alia, praying for quashing the aforesaid order and for re-instating him in service to the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent –cum-EDMC. The tribunal by order dated 1.9.2004 set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate him in service. So far respondent no.5 (petitioner herein) is concerned , liberty was given to consider his case for alternative appointment against the vacancy, if any, arises in near future. The petitioner filed application for review of the aforesaid order and by order dated 7.10.2004 passed in MA No.413 of 2004 the said review application was dismissed with observation that the petitioner may approach the concerned authority for redressal of his grievance in view of the observations made by the tribunal in its order dated 1.9.2004 passed in O.A.No.12 of 1999. Thereafter, the petitioner 2 filed O.A.No.183 of 2005, inter alia, praying for a direction to the respondents to accommodate him pursuant to the order dated 1.9.2004 passed in O.A.No.12 of 1999. By order dated 7th September, 2005 the said application has been dismissed. Mr. Vinod Kumar appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner was heard and on consideration of rival submission the tribunal had passed the order. We do not find any error in the same. There is yet another impediment in the way of the petitioner. The petitioner had earlier filed application for review and thereafter application for implementing the order before the tribunal itself. Having failed to do the same, he has now chosen to file application for quashing the order of which, he sought implementation in the application filed earlier. We do not find any merit in this application and it is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, ACJ.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Neyaz/- 3 Neyaz/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) Neyaz/ (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)