PHOOL BADAN TIWARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants before us in this appeal, have called in question the validity and correctness of the order dated 13-1-2000 passed by the High Court in C.W.P. No. 6654/99. The appellants in the first instance approached the Central Administration Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3099/91 and O. A. No. 1014/93. The Tribunal dismissed both the O.As. Not satisfied with and aggrieved by the said orders of the Tribunal they approached the High Court by filing the writ petition aforementioned. The High Court did not find any good reason or valid ground to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal in that view the writ petition was dismissed, affirming the orders passed by the Tribunal.

(2.) The appellants claimed that they were employees of Northern Railways and were working as supervisors in the Handicraft Centres; they were selected and appointed as supervisors by the railway authorities; they have been working as railway employees and as such they were entitled for the reliefs sought for in the original applications before the Tribunal. In D. A. 3099/91 the appellant No. 1 herein, namely, Phool Badan Tiwari was aggrieved by the notice dated 17-12-1991 by which the President of Mahila Sewing Centre, Ghaziabad had invited applications for filling up the post of supervisor in the Handicraft Centre of Ghaziabad. It was her case that when she had already been appointed pursuant to the selection held on 1-7-1989, no fresh appointment could be made for the same post. O.A. No. 1014/93 was filed by the appellants and one more person seeking the reliefs that their services be regularised with all consequential benefits, declare them as railway servants, direct the respondents to pay them regular pay-scales with all allowances and to quash such policy/policies which may come in the way of seeking regularisation of their services.

(3.) The Tribunal looking to the stand taken by the respondents came to the conclusion that the appellants are not at all railway servants and they being not railway servants the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide their cases, although in O.A. No. 1014/93, the Tribunal referred to the contentions of the parties and ultimately following the order passed in O.A. No. 3099/91, holding that it had no jurisdiction, dismissed O.A. No. 1014/93 as well. As already noticed above, the High Court did not interfere with the orders passed by the Tribunal.