Union of India (UOI) and Others vs Uma Shankar Saxena and Another

In Original Application No. 939 of 2008, Uma Shankar Saxena v. Union of India, the Central Administrative found that the ground that the photostat machine operator is ex-cadre post, cannot be accepted as reasonable and valid, because of the judgment in O.A. No. 1164 of 1998 dated 10.8.2004. In the said judgment the post of Photostat Machine Operate was not accepted to be ex-cadre post to which benefit of restructuring could not be allowed. No appeal was filed against the judgment. The claim of the applicant for restructuring of his post could not be rejected.

The Tribunal further observed that as regards the post being isolated one, the plea of the applicant to rely on the Board''s letter dated 12.7.1991 and subsequent letters/ circulars were acceptable. In the Board''s D.O. letter dated 12.7.1991 it was clearly stated that the post of Photostat Machine Operator is an isolated one and on this basis the benefit of restructuring accrues to the applicant. The O.A. No. 1168 of 1998 was allowed by the Tribunal on 10.8.2004 and the impugned order dated 11.1.2008 was set aside. The competent authority was directed to consider the claim of the applicant in view of the observations made in the judgment.

The Respondent No. 1 applied for execution. It appears that dates were fixed in the execution application and that proceedings for attachment were drawn. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, Izzat Nagar by Office Order No. 1651 also passed necessary orders in compliance with the order of the Tribunal dated 16.11.2010 against which review petition filed on 2 29.11.2010 was pending. We are informed that the review petition was dismissed.

In the same order it was observed that Shri Uma Shankar Saxena, Photostat Machine Operator will be given benefit of restructuring operative from 1.3.1993 with the benefit of upgradation in the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 subject to his complying the necessary conditions namely 3 years'' satisfactory service records, confidential reports DRASPE, vigilance clearance and continuous one year''s previous service. It is further stated in the last line that the orders will be subject to the legal proceedings that may be taken by the railway administration.

By the impugned orders passed in the execution proceedings the Tribunal has found that it is always open to the railway administration to take legal proceedings against the orders of the Tribunal but since the main orders have not been challenged and that review petition has been dismissed, the observations in the order of compliance dated 29.11.2010 were wholly uncalled for.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid observations and the manner in which the execution proceedings are being undertaken, the Union of India has filed this writ petition.

It is not denied that the orders of the Tribunal had become final and that benefit of restructuring was also given to the Respondents. It goes without saying that these orders are always subject to any legal proceedings, which the Petitioner may have drawn. Those orders have also not been challenged in this writ petition. The writ petition is confined only to the impugned orders in the execution proceedings.

We do not find any good reason for the Union of India to file this writ petition. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed.