Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 676 (PAT)

Sri Alfred Pravin Dutta v. Union Of India

2002-06-27

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment 1. These writ petitions arise out of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26 May 2000 in claim cases registered as O.A. No. 557 of 1996, O.A. No. 617 of 1996, O.A. No. 658 of 1996 and O.A. No. 499 of 1996. 2. At the out set learned counsel for the Union of India pointed out that against the same claim cases decided by the Tribunal by a common order dated 26 May 2000, the High Court considered the matter and rendered its decision on 14 August 2001. This was the case of Vijay Kumar Rai and another V/s. The Union of India others, CWJC No. 10492 of 2001. This decision is reported in 2001 (4) PLJR 208 . The record of this decision, as pointed out by the counsel of Union of India, was sent for and is before the Court. The order which has been impugned is between the same parties and of the same date and thus, it will be difficult for this Court to ignore its earlier decision of 14 August 2001. 3. However, the Court permitted an opportunity to be addressed by Messers Ram Kumar Jha in the present writ petitions. The contention of learned counsel is that the Tribunal could not have unsuited them on the ground of laches. Any cause on which the respondents seek their claim admittedly is between the year 1983 and 1986. In the circumstances if claims were filed 10 years subsequent to when the cause may have arisen the Court cannot certify that the Tribunal has committed any error in making an observation that the claims were "hopelessly barred by limitation". The Tribunal has noticed the fact but did not go into the merits as the claims were barred by limitation. 4. It is same order of the Tribunal on which this Court rendered its decision in the matter of Vijay Kumar Rai V/s. Union of India & others (supra). 5. Only one aspect which the Tribunal has noticed and no other needs to be reiterated that the respondents have not accepted and have in fact expressed doubt about genuineness of the working certificate granted by some officers of the North Eastern Railway to those who filed claim petitions. The railway administration consistently contended that the certificates have neither been issued by the competent authority nor were in accordance with the prescribed instructions on the subject. The railway administration consistently contended that the certificates have neither been issued by the competent authority nor were in accordance with the prescribed instructions on the subject. This observation of the Tribunal is contained in paragraph 15 of the order. This aspect is relevant because somewhere down the line the origins of the matter have been forgotten. 6. The claimants when they were at the school opted for voluntary service at the railway station as part of their training outlined for boys scouts and girl guides. Any voluntary or community service to which they claim was part of their honorary service as the boy scout and as the girl guides. In this regard in this very petition in one of the petitions (CWJC No. 5843 of 2000) lies a certificate (Annexure 1 H) which mentions that the certificate was awarded to one Khurshid Alam at the time when he had discharged community service as part of the contingent of Bharat Scouts and Guides. This Court is not adjudicating any aspect of community service done in 1984 and the certificate was being made in 1990, but these are matters of record. 7. Suffice it to say that as the impugned order in the present set of petition is the same as in the matter of Vijay Kumar Rai and another V/s.The Union of India & others (supra), it is not possible for the Court to take another view. 8. Thus, the petitions are dismissed.