RAMAYAN MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL things considered in so far as the present petition was concerned it was initially filed when the Central Administrative Tribunal declined to modify an interim order in the matter relating to a claim registered as O.A.No.432 of 1999. The modification was sought by an application no. M.A. 223. of 1999. The matter was between Ramayan Mishra vs. Union of India and ors. The order by which the Tribunal declined to grant and/or modify its earlier order is dated 20 August 1999, Annexure -1 to the present petition. It is thus that the court had noticed in its order dated 25 June 2002. on a statement by the petitioner 'scounsel of a review petition pending before the Tribunal. Counsel for the Union of India contended that it is not a review petition but the original case itself is pending and the present petition has been filed against an order of Tribunal declining to modify an ad -interim order. Since then it appears that the original case itself has not been decided.

(2.) BY an interlocutory application the Tribunal 'sorder dated 21 September 2001 in the original case registered as O.A. no. 432 of 1999 has been appended on the record of this petition. One thing the court needs to clarify that this order was available on 25 June, 2002 when a mention was made to adjourn the case.

(3.) IT is not disputed that at one stage Ramayan Mishra had been assigned duties as a Head Ticket Collector. Perhaps as a cause of re -structuring amongst the various cadres or because of the availability of posts the petitioner saw reversion as Senior Ticket Collector. This reversion was not as a result of any departmental inquiry or any allegation against the petitioner. At times, it happens that when there is a rationalization of different cadres then regard being had to the availability of posts all who are working on a post higher than the one to which they are reverted cannot be accommodated. This is a necessary corollary of cadre re -structuring.