Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 13 (CAL)

Sajan Paul v. Union of India

2015-01-13

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, TAPAN KUMAR DUTT

body2015
Judgment Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. 1. The four petitioners in the WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated January 07, 2015 are questioning an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (Circuit at Port Blair) dated December 23, 2014 disposing of an OA No. 351/00160/2014 of the private respondents. 2. The order of the Tribunal is quoted below:- “Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 2. With the consent of both the parties, the OA can be disposed of with a direction upon the authorities to implement the seniority list dated 31.12.2013. In such view of the matter, the OA is disposed of with a direction upon the concerned respondents to proceed with such seniority list. 3. OA is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 3. Mr.Khan appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the private respondents filed the OA dated August 2014 without impleading the petitioners who were likely to be affected by the decision in the OA and obtained the order of the Tribunal without disclosing an order of the administration dated March 11, 2014 suspending implementation of the seniority list dated December 31, 2013. 4. The letter of the administration dated March 11, 2014 is at WPCT p.58. It was regarding “Final seniority list of LMRR- Reg.” The relevant contents of the letter are quoted below:- “In continuation of this Office Letter No.1-59/EL/SE/Estt/13/433 dated 24.01.14, I am directed to inform you that the final seniority list of LMMR is kept suspended till a clear decision is taken up for the settlement of seniority list. The same may be circulated among the LMMR working under your division.” 5. The WPCT was taken up for hearing on January 09, 2015, when Mr.Rao appearing for the administration prayed for accommodation so that he might obtain necessary instructions regarding the letter of the administration dated March 11, 2014 annexed to the WPCT. 6. Today Mr.Rao has submitted that he has received instructions to say that the letter dated March 11, 2014 annexed to the WPCT was actually issued by the administration; and that the letter was not produced before the Tribunal at the time the Tribunal heard the OA and passed the order dated December 23, 2014. 7. Mr.George appearing for the private respondents has submitted as follows. 7. Mr.George appearing for the private respondents has submitted as follows. The document at WPCT p.101 will reveal the minutes of a meeting held by the administration with the federation representatives on November 05, 2009. It was recorded in the minutes that seniority of LMMR would be decided according to the principles stated therein. For unnecessary reasons, the administration did not implement the final seniority list. There is nothing to show that the letter of the administration dated March 11, 2014 was circulated. 8. After hearing Mr.Khan, Mr.Rao and Mr.Gegore and after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the petitioners are justified in contending that they ought to have been impleaded in the OA as respondents. We are also of the opinion that the administration ought to have brought to the notice of the Tribunal its letter dated March 11, 2014. 9. The private respondents did not question the order of the administration dated March 11, 2014 in their OA dated August 2014. It is evident that the Tribunal passed the order dated December 23, 2014 in complete ignorance of the order of the administration dated March 11, 2014 suspending implementation of the seniority list dated December 31, 2013. In our opinion, it will be appropriate to direct the Tribunal to hear the OA afresh. 10. For these reasons, we set aside the Tribunal order, allow the WPCT and order as follows. The Tribunal shall add the petitioners to the OA as respondents and hear and decide the OA afresh. If the private respondents apply for amendment of the OA, it shall examine the prayer according to law. No costs. Certified xerox.