JAI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT , while working as a Senior Section Engineer (Works) with the Western Railway in Bhavnagar Division, was absorbed to the services of Dedicated Freight Corridor Corporation of India Limited (DFCCIL) as Assistant Manager after obtaining NOC from the railway. He joined the services of the DFCCIL on 11 -11 -2011 after offering Annexure -A/7 Technical Resignation dated 30 -9 -2011 to the railway and the same was accepted by the railway vide Annexure -A/8 Memoranda dated 04 -11 -2011 and 05 -11 -2011 (collectively). According to the applicant he had rendered services in the railway for more than 24 years and hence he is entitled to all retiral benefits flowing out of the statutory provisions. The applicant submitted Annexure -A/10 application dated 10 -12 -2011 to respondent No. 3, but there was no response. On 16 -2 -2012 when he met the dealing person in the office of respondent No. 3, it was reported that the applicants service -sheets are missing and that they are being recast. The applicant again made Annexure -A/11 representation dated 12 -3 -2012, but no response was received from the respondents and once again he made representations on 15 -1 -2013 and 25 -2 -2013 (Annexure -A/12 collectively) to respondent No. 3. Having obtained no response the applicant has approached this Tribunal for the following reliefs:

(2.) NO reply was filed by the other respondents.

(3.) HEARD Mr. M.S. Rao, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. R.R. Patel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Respondent No. 3 has filed MA/301/2013 for removal of respondent No. 1 from the array of parties, which was opposed by the applicant on the ground that all the orders relating to the railways are being issued by respondent No. 1 Railway Board and hence the presence of respondent No. 1 in the OA is very much essential. The contention of the applicant in this regard appears to be justified because the presence of respondent No. 2 in the OA is essential in order to have a complete and effective adjudication of this matter. Therefore the MA for deletion of respondent No. 1 from the array of parties is not allowed. Since service of notice in respect of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 is complete, this OA is being proceeded with ex -parte in respect of respondent Nos. 1 and 4.