ABDUL REHMAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for review of the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(S) No. 2816 of 2003 and has been filed by the applicants who were not parties in W.P. (S) No. 2816 of 2003.

(2.) The CRWS commenced production in the year 1989, but even thereafter the CRWS required technically experienced staff and accordingly circulars dated 16.7.1992, 22.5.1993, 2.3.1993 and 14.6.1994 were issued inviting options from Group 'C' employees working in various Workshops and Units of the Central Railways and in these circulars, it was mentioned that their transfers will be considered as non -request transfers and they will get transfer allowances and other allowances applicable to the staff subjected to non -request transfers and till their absorption in the CRWS cadre after screening and selection, they will be permitted to retain their seniority in the parent cadre. In these circulars, it was also mentioned that the CRWS cadre was not closed and that final seniority of all staff in the particular trade or grade will be decided on the basis of the directives issued in consultation with the Headquarters at the time of cadre closure. Circulars were also issued on 31.5.1991, 5.6.1991, 16.6.1991, 22.6.1991, 28.7.1992, 16.11.1992 and 9.3.1994 inviting applications from group "D" employees who were prepared to join the CRWS on own request transfer by accepting bottom seniority. In these circulars, it was made clear that such Group -D employees transferred on request will not be entitled to either transfer passes or TA/ DA or joining time which are permissible in the cases of transfers on administrative grounds.

(3.) We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Tiwari that the application filed by the applicants, who were not parties either before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 559 of 1997 and O.A. No. 732 of 2001 or before this Court in WP. (S) No. 2816 of 2003 cannot be entertained for the purpose correcting erroneous decisions, if any, in the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2816 of 2003. The applicants admittedly were not parties in the W.P.(S) No.2816 of 2003 and were not heard before the order dated 16.8.2005 was passed by the Division Bench of the Court in W.P. (S) No. 2816 of 2003 and yet pursuant to the order dated 16.8.2005 of the Division Bench of the Court, the seniority of the applicants, as determined on the basis of the order dated 6.12.1994 of the Chief Personnel officer (A) of the Central Railways has been disturbed and they have been reverted from higher posts to lower posts. Principles of natural justice require that the applicants are heard by the Court for the purpose of correcting erroneous decisions, if any, in the order dated 16.8.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the Court in W.P. (S) No. 2816 of 2003. In Shivdeo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab (supra), a five Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court, speaking through Mudholkar, J. repelled a similar contention raised before them that Khosla, J. of the High Court could not have entertained a review of his prior order and pass a second order on merits. In paragraph 8 of the judgment as reported in the AIR at page 1911.