Full Text
W.P.(C) 153/2016
JUDGMENT
Through : Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Adv.
Through : Mr.J.K. Singh, Standing counsel for
Railways.
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
G.S.SISTANI, J (ORAL)
1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 26.3.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal (in short the „Tribunal‟) in RA No.90/2012 and the order dated 3.11.2014 passed in C.P.No.550/2013 in O.A.No.1154/2011.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the observations made by the Tribunal in para 5 of the order dated 26.3.2012, relevant portion of which read as under:
2016:DHC:147-DB
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner was initially engaged in the year 1986 as Parcel Portar through a railway contractor at Northern Railway Station, Gurgaon, upto 31.5.2000, when the contract system for Parcel Portars was abolished, which led to the filing of O.A. 1154/2011, which was decided on 28.2.2012, when the following directions was issued:
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the respondent herein filed A review petition wherein the Tribunal had observed that the Tribunal had not given any specific direction to the respondent in view of their submission that no such post is available. Counsel further submits that in the review petition without any prayer made by either of the parties, the earlier directions could not have been withdrawn.
5. Mr.J.K. Singh, learned standing counsel for the Railways/respondent no.2, enters appearance on an advance copy and has drawn the attention of the Court to the communication dated 6.2.2014, more particularly para 5, concluding portion of which reads as under:
6. Counsel for the respondent no.2 further submits that the Railways stands by its decision that as and when the vacancy arises as per seniority the case of the petitioner would be considered in compliance with the directions passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1154/2011 on 28.2.2012 and the observations that “We have not given any specific directions to the respondents ……. would not come in the way of the petitioner.”
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and also examined the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. Having regard to the observations made by the Tribunal and in view of the stand taken by the Railways in the communication dated 6.2.2014, we are of the view that no further orders are required to be passed as the grievance of the petitioner has been satisfied. In view of the stand taken by counsel for respondent no.2, present petition is disposed of. G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 08, 2016 msr