UNION OF INDIA Vs. TRILOCHAN SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Union of India through the General Manager, East Coast Railway, Bhubaneswar and two others have filed the instant writ petition against the impugned judgment and order dated 16.4.2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that opposite parties 1 to 20 along with some other persons applied for enrolment of fresh faces as substitutes for utilization against day to day casualties in pursuance of the invitation of applications from the children of the railway employees who had retired on superannuation or voluntarily after 1.1.1987 or were to retire from service by 31.12.1993. Opposite parties 1 to 20, who were the children of the retired railway employees, moved their applications before the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Khurda Road. The petitioners had conducted some test/screening but stopped to take further steps. The result of the test already conducted was also not declared. being aggrieved, they filed O.A. (No. 511 of 1994) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack and the same was disposed of on 4.1.1999 with the following observations : -

(3.) THOUGH the Tribunal has not quashed the order dated 22.1.1999 cancelling the selection, it has observed in its impugned order that the present petitioners have sufficiently misled the Tribunal as well as this Court in the earlier round of litigation and consequently the imposed cost of Rs. 1000/ - upon them. The Tribunal in its impugned order has also made an observation and directed that as under the existing policy of the department there is no bar for considering the wards of the Railway Employees for enrolment as substitutes along with outside candidates, therefore, the petitioners to consider the case of all the applicants before it (from amongst opposite parties 1 to 20 in the instant writ petition) who had made applications in response to the Notification dated 13.8.1990 as and when they take action for enrolment of substitutes under their organisation. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment, i.e., paragraphs 7, 8 and 9, Tribunal is quoted as under :