M. Natarajan vs South Central Railway

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent South Central Railways.

VERY briefly, undisputed facts of the case are that the appellant joined the services of the Railways way back in 1945 and since he was a temporary clerk and subsequently promoted as Jr. Accountant in 1962. In the year 1964, he was transferred to Hubly where he continued to work till 1970 but when his request for transfer near his home town was not considered favourably, he gave a conditional resignation, which was not accepted. Consequently, he tendered an unconditional resignation in 1970, which was accepted in May 1970. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that when he applied for pension under Scheme brought into force by the respondent Railways, he was not given any pension. It is in these circumstances, that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties found that it is not a consumer dispute. Aggrieved by this order, an appeal has been filed before us. Today the case was fixed for final hearing, it was fixed in the presence of the learned Counsel for the appellant, yet despite knowledge of date, he is not present. The learned Counsel for the respondent is present. After hearing the learned Counsel for the respondent and perusal of the material on record, we go on to dispose of the case.

After perusing the material on record, it is clear that the appellant has already approached the Central Appellate Tribunal (C.A.T.) for getting relief on the same issue, which it appears was granted and now as per his written submissions dated 26.5.2005, he has already moved an application of ''contempt'' before C.A.T. In view of above facts we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the State Commission for two reasons; firstly, that he is not a ''Consumer'' as per Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, wherein the jurisdiction to deal administrative matters rests exclusively with the Administrative Tribunals in this case with the C.A.T.; and secondly, the appellant has already engaged in seeking relief from C.A.T. It is not within us to increase the multiplicity of litigation especially when another Quasi Judicial Body, who is competent, is already seized of the same issue and that too earlier in time. In view of above, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.