TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1993 (8) TMI 319
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....attle has been long one. Some of it is noticed in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (referred as 'CAT'), Hyderabad. Other orders impugned are passed by CAT, Jodhpur and CAT, Chandigarh. Appeal numbers 4681-82 of 1992 and 4651-4680 of 1992 arise out of the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad. Earlier the employees challenged their dismissal by way of writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Some of these petitions were allowed as the appellate authority had passed non-speaking orders. Others were dismissed. Against the orders dismissing the writ petitions the employees filed a review petition which was allowed in view of decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel (1985) IILLJ 206 SC and a direction was given to the appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh in light of observations made, by this Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (1986) ILLJ 36 SC and Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ors. (1986) IILLJ 334 SC. The appellate authority once again maintained the order of dismissal. It has been set aside by the CAT both for failure to apply mind and absence of any material justifying dismissal. Following direc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... a fresh order may be passed in the Revision petition of the applicants after taking into account observations contained in this order. Since applicants are out of job for over 11 years, the revisional authority shall pass the fresh orders on the Revision Petitions within 4 months of receipt of; the copy of this order. The respondents are directed to allow the applicants to retain their quarters until 2 months after the fresh orders are passed in their Revision Petition, or until the normal period for which they are entitled under rules to retain the quarters after superannuation in case of those who have attained the age of superannuation, subject to payment of all arrears of rent at the rate applicable before their dismissal from service. within 4 months of this order. Where the revisional authority holds or orders an enquiry under D.A.R., the applicants will be allowed to retain the quarters till final decision in the enquiry proceedings subject to the above conditions. Parties to bear their own costs. So far the appeals arising out of order passed by CAT, Chandigarh are concerned the employees working in that area also challenged the orders of disciplinary and appellate auth....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffidavit filed in July 1992 it was stated that the matter was receiving attention of ministries concerned and a recommendation was being made for grant of monetary benefit to the employees. The statement was supported by an affidavit and it was stated that although the punishment of dismissal was not being withdrawn the Government as a matter of sympathetic consideration had decided to examine the feasibility of granting to the employees ex-gratia payment. In October 1992 the Deputy Director, Eastern Railway Board filed an affidavit stating that the railway employees who had been dismissed due to participation in the trade union agitation will be paid ex-gratia as one time payment on certain terms and conditions. In November 1992 when the petitions were taken up for hearing it was stated that the attempt to settle the dispute, amicably, has failed. 5. More than a decade has gone since these employees were dismissed for participating in strike called by the Union recognized by the Railways. But end has not reached. Barring appellate and revisional authority whose discretion too was attempted to be curtailed by issuing circular no Court or tribunal has found the orders to be well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the claim petitions on bare technicality, yet there can be no doubt that the Government whether in 1990 or in 1991 or in 1992 has been considering the matter, and efforts had been to grant relief to these employees. What should be done then which may do justice to both the parties? Overall picture is that there are five types of employees, one, whose claim petition before tribunal has been allowed and they have been directed to be reinstated; second, whose claims petitions had been allowed to a limited extent, namely, the appellate and revising authority had been directed to re-examine their cases; third, those who have retired during pendency of the claim petitions; fourth, where the claim petitions have been dismissed because the appeals filed had already been dismissed; and fifth; those who did not approach the Court and the Government have taken a decision to re-employ them. We are not concerned with last category. But the rationale behind this decision of the Government is to atone the injustice done to these employees. It has not been found by any tribunal that the orders passed against the respondents was in any manner justified. In other words, the exercise of power was ar....