IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA ------------- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12697 of 2011 ----------- In the matter of an application under Articles 227 of the Constitution of India. ---------- Mahesh Kumar Singh, Son of Shri Ram Gopal Singh, R/O Village- Parbejabad ( Badurah ), P.O.+ P.S. Sonpur, District- Saran.................. petitioner Versus 1. The Union Of India, through the General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur now East Central Railway, Hazipur, Vaishali 2. The F.A. & C.A. O., N.E., Railway Gorakhpur (U.P.), now E.C. Railway, Hazipur. 3. The Divisional Accounts Officer, N.E. Railway, District- Saran, now E.C.Railway, Sonpur(Saran)................................. Respondents. 2 18-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna contained in annexure-10 as well as the order passed in review contained in annexure-11. Although petitioner’s case has a long history, fortunately the award passed in an industrial dispute,under judgment and order of Jharkhand, High Court dated 17-11- 2009, has already attained finality. O.A. No. 727 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner and two others for claiming regularization in service on Group- D post. That prayer was 2 not allowed by the Tribunal after noticing the factual position and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that out of three applicants before the Tribunal two have been granted regularization by the Railways after the order passed in review dated 8th October, 2010 (annexure-11). The regularization order in respect of two other persons is said to be dated 5-8-2011. The grievance of the petitioner now is that when two others have been regularized, similar treatment should have been meted out to the petitioner. On this ground petitioner will have to seek information from the railways and if he has any grievance he may seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Even after noticing the contention that petitioner had been successful in screening test, in the review order the Tribunal has observed on the basis of record that his result was kept pending because of writ petition pending in the High Court, Patna. No doubt, that writ petition was not filed by this writ petitioner but by the Railways but there is no dispute that writ petition was pending in this Court and on that account petitioner’ result was kept pending. We are not aware 3 whether petitioner was successful or not. It is for the petitioner to approach the authority and seek information and if he has wrongly been denied benefit of regularization vis-à-vis his junior or other colleagues, he may file representation and pursue his grievance through appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey,J)