CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2002) 08 PAT CK 0021

Anand Prasad Singh and Others vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 26 August 2002 · Citation: (2002) 4 PLJR 85

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ravi S. Dhavan, C.J · R.N. Prasad, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.W.J.C. No. 5835 of 2001

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 352 words
1.

The order of the Tribunal under challenge is dated 1st February, 2001 in claim case O.A. No. 322 of 1996; J.P. Sinha and five Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

2.

Reliance also made on behalf of the Petitioner on the order dated 22.11.1999, to the effect, that the Tribunal being a court of record summoned relevant records and, files but despite the order of the Tribunal the records had not been placed.

3.

The submission is that without the record the Tribunal committed an error by proceeding with the case. The contention is that this error goes to the root of the matter and in the circumstances the error is manifest.

4.

Today, counsel on behalf of the Railway Administration and Union of India makes submission that the records have now been located and either the High Court may examine these records and consider the matter on merit or the matter may be remitted to the Tribunal for a decision afresh.

5.

The question of examining the fresh material by the High Court does not arise. The claim cases have been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal. There is no dispute between the parties that these records not available previously have been located now. Appropriately the Tribunal will be the forum to examine the records. These records were originally desired by the Tribunal. Suffice it to say that the proceeding will now be before the Tribunal.

6.

With the aforesaid observation, the matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna.

7.

The order dated 1st February, 2001 is quashed as the counsel for the Petitioner consents that any person who may have received benefit under the order of 1st February, 2001 may continue for four months during which the court hopes that the Tribunal will re-examine the matter. Either party will have the liberty to apply to the Tribunal to bring the matter to its notice for consideration afresh.

8.

The petition succeeds in part.

9.

Both the parties will be entitled to acertify copy of this order within ten days from the date of applying for it.