LAWS(CAL)-2022-2-32

RAM RATAN MUKHERJEE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On February 07, 2022
Ram Ratan Mukherjee Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition depicts the struggle of the petitioners Ram Ratan Mukherjee and Radhaballav Jana since their retirement from railway services on superannuation on 30/11/2013 to establish their rights to promotion and monetary benefits in terms of the order dtd. 8/10/2013 issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India on restructuring of certain ' Group - C ' Cadres. Failing in their appeals to the respondent authorities to get relief, they as a first round of litigation filed application being O.A No. 350/949/2018 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, (hereinafter be referred to as the Tribunal) seeking promotional and monetary benefits in terms of the aforesaid order of the Railway Board. By order dtd. 28/9/2018 the Learned Tribunal disposed of the application permitting the petitioners to make a comprehensive representation to the respondent no. 2, the Divisional Personnel Officer, South Eastern Railway, Kolkata within two weeks from the date of receipt of the order and if any such representation was preferred before the respondent no. 2, then the respondent no. 2 was directed to consider the same as per extant rules and regulations in force and pass a reasoned and speaking order communicating the same to the petitioners within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. In compliance thereof the petitioners made the representation on 24/10/2018. By order dtd. 3/12/2018 the respondent no. 2 disposed of the representation with the following observations :

(2.) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order dtd. 3/12/2018, the petitioners filed the Tribunal application being No. O.A 350/242/2019 for the second time seeking the following reliefs:

(3.) By the impugned order dtd. 20/1/2021 the Learned Tribunal dismissed the tribunal application preferred by the petitioners. Challenging this order the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.