VASHRAM NATHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed praying for the following reliefs.

(2.) AS per the facts of this case, the petitioner was recruited as a casual labour from 21.11.1979 whose name was deleted from the record vide order dated 1.10.1992. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the said impugned order and prayed for reinstatement in service. It is the case of the petitioner that due to the hard work of the Gangman, he had suffered back pain and he was advised rest by the Railway Doctor and he had proceeded on sick leave from 7.11.1988 upto 8.3.1989. It is the case of the petitioner that the Civil Surgeon has given the certificate that the petitioner should not lift the weight and not to do the work where he has to bend the body and thereafter the petitioner was transferred from Jamnagar to Bhavnagar on 10.3.1989. Accordingly, the petitioner was given posting order on 16.3.1989 and was posted at Gondal on 24.3.1989 in Gang No.9. It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner suffered an attack of back pain and proceeded on sick leave from 26.3.1989 for 15 days. The petitioner informed respondent No.3 that the work of gangman is not lighter job and therefore, he may be provided with some light job as per the advice of the Civil Surgeon, Erwin Hospital, Jamnagar. The petitioner has requested the respondent No.3 for giving him memo for medical examination, but the petitioner was not given the memo for medical examination nor taken on duty. Thereafter, the petitioner made several representations to the respondent to provide him light job but ultimately, the petitioner was informed by letter dated 1.10.1992 that the petitioner is absent from duty from 10.4.1989 and hence his name is struck off from the railway service. Therefore, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal by filing Original Application No.237 of 1996 along with the application for condonation of delay which came to be dismissed vide order dated 8.10.2001. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the review application which also came to be dismissed. Hence, the present petition.

(3.) HEARD learned advocates for the parties and have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by learned advocates for both the parties.