RAJENDRASING P GOHIL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether Union of India is a necessary or proper party and through whom it could be sued in Original Application filed by the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming promotion and seniority?

(2.) THE petitioner is working as a Group C employee in the office of respondent No.2. He filed Original Application No.374 of 2007 (for short the O.A.). An application for amendment being Miscellaneous Application No.449 of 2007 was also filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (for short the Tribunal). In the O.A. the petitioner claimed that he was due for promotion in his own Division as Diesel Assistant. THE respondents had offered to the petitioner, ad-hoc promotion out of cadre in Vadodara Division. Another application being Miscellaneous Application No.84 of 2008 was filed by the respondents seeking deletion of respondent No.1, the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi from the array of respondents.

(3.) IN the paragraph 2 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner it had been stated that the issue was required to be clarified by the Railway Board which is competent to take policy decisions. It has been stated that by typographical error the respondent no.2 had been mentioned as the Divisional Railway Manager, Rajkot and for correcting the mistake the petitioner had filed amendment application before the Tribunal. It had further been stated that the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, as per the information of the petitioner/applicant, is the ex-officio Chairman of the Railway Board. 5.1 IN the paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner it had been stated that important issues are required to be decided by the higher authorities, representing Union of INdia. Railway Board has to decide that whether an employee from one division could be absorbed in another division, and if he is not absorbed in the other division, then what would be the consequences about fixation of his seniority, maintenance of lien, etc., therefore, the Railway Board is a necessary party. 5.2 IN the paragraph 3 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner it had further been stated that the General Manager is simply an authority to implement the orders issued by the Railway Board. The Secretary, Railway Board had filed his reply on merits before the Tribunal on 21.01.2008. The reply filed by Mr. Sunil Pandya, DPO had been filed on behalf of both the respondents. 5.3 IN the paragraph 4 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the petitioner it had been stated that the Secretary, Railway Board is a necessary party to the O.A. pending final disposal before the Tribunal.