UNION OF INDIA Vs. SHIVJI MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE order dated 9 -3 -2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O. A. No. 997 of 2005, Shivji Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., is impugned in this writ petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Railway Administration to act upon the order dated 30 -4 -1998 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), New Delhi. Entitlement by way of refund was to be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order. Union of India alongwith Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), Head Quarters Office North Central, Allahabad and Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, North Central Railway, Kanpur are the petitioners in this writ petition.

(3.) THE facts giving rise to the dispute is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were booking clerk at Kanpur Railway Station of the Northern Railway on 9 -10 -1997. Train No. 4518 Down Unchahar Express travelling from Ambala to Allahabad could not complete its journey and was terminated at Kanpur Railway Station. The contesting respondents refunded the entire value of the tickets from the starting station in terms of the Relevant Rules mentioned aforesaid. The question raised was whether the passengers, who were refunded the amount, were entitled for the entire refund of the fare or only the amount of fare for the distance not covered. The matter was referred to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), New Delhi by its letter dated 17 -11 -1997 who agreed with the respondents and passed an order dated 30 -4 -1998 that the refund was correctly made in accordance with Relevant Rules. The respondents were aggrieved on account of the reason that despite the aforesaid order, a debit list was prepared on 28 -2 -2000 and the amount shown against each of the respondents were to be deducted from their salary vide order dated 16 -3 -2004. This order was passed on 16 -3 -2004 by the Chief Booking Supervisor North Central Railway, Kanpur. The order was challenged by the respondents in Original Application Nos. 409 of 2004 and 390 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. The order dated 16 -3 -2004 was quashed by the Tribunal on 23 -12 -2004. The case of the railway administration was that the respondents erred in refunding the entire amount from the initial journey whereas the refund could only be made in accordance with Relevant Rules for the untravelled distance alone, and that too only if the railway administration was not able to arrange for the destination station by any diverted route or by arranging transhipment or otherwise, and the passengers were not willing to avail of such an alternative arrangement. It is admitted by the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds) North Central, Allahabad by its letter dated 30 -4 -1998 that since no alternative arrangements were made therefore, the refund of the entire amount was correct. It appears that the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier applications was sought to be reviewed by the competent authority. By means of a review application No. 27 of 2001, the matter was again placed for consideration before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, North Central Railway, Kanpur on 15 -3 -2004. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager re -examined the matter in the review application and passed an order dated 15/16 -3 -2004 holding that the debit raised by the Traffic Inspector Account was justified. This order was once again challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in O.A. Nos. 390 of 2004 and 409 of 2004 which was disposed of with the direction to the concerned authority to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. A counter reply was filed on behalf of the Railway Administration that a report was submitted by the Senior Traffic Inspector Account vide report No. 03/1997 dated 14 -5 -1997 where it was pointed out that the alternative arrangement for passenger for onward journey beyond Kanpur was available and, therefore, the passengers were not entitled for any refund whatsoever. This order was challenged in O.A. No. 996 of 2004 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 9 -11 -2004 directing the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager North Central Railway, Kanpur to decide the representation by affording personal hearing to the respondents. In O.A. Nos. 390 of 2004 and 409 of 2004 similar questions were involved in other original applications and therefore, they were disposed of by the similar directions on 13 -12 -2004. The joint representation of all the respondents was decided by a common order dated 13 -12 -2004. This order was challenged in O.A. No. 997 of 2005 which was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad against the petitioners and is impugned in the instant writ petition.