KRISHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-75
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: DELHI)
Decided on
September 16,2014
SHRI KRISHAN
Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA (UOI)
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MMR KHAN AND ORS. V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]PIARASINGH VS. NATHA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
TRADERS AND TRADERS VS. RAMNARAYAN BHATTAD [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE SILICON 1 PVT LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR CENTRAL EXCISE THANE [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI COMPUTERS PVT LIMITED VS. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
METROARK LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
HAMZA HAJI VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This special leave petition(s) is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3774 of 2011, dated 30.03.2012 and final judgment and the order passed by the High Court of Delhi in Second Review Petition No. 117 of 2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3774 of 2011, dated 09.05.2014.
(2.)The matter arose before the High Court of Delhi against order dated 21.09.2010 passed in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009 and against review order dated 16.11.2010 in R.A. No. 295 of 2010 in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the plea of the Petitioners-herein to be regularised in the services of the Respondents-herein.
(3.)The aforesaid writ petition was filed against the orders of the Tribunal by the Petitioners in the High Court of Delhi claiming regularization of their services as Railway Employees. The Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment and order dated 30.03.2012, dismissed the said writ petition, on the ground that there was no document placed on record to recognise the Mess, being run at the Signalling and Telecommunication Training Centre, Northern Railway, Ghaziabad (for short, "the S&T Training Centre''), as a non-statutory recognised canteen. The Court held that the said Mess was not sanctioned by the Railway Board, in accordance with Rule 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual, in order to be classified as a non-statutory recognised canteen. Thereafter, the High Court of Delhi, by order dated 09.05.2014, found no merit in the review petition filed against its judgment and order dated 30.03.2012. The Petitioners, in the review petition before the High Court of Delhi, had additionally placed a letter dated 09.11.1976, an unsigned typed copy, to indicate that an advance had been sanctioned to the Mess Management Committee and that the said advance was approved by the Railway Board vide its letter dated 01.11.1976. However, the High Court was of the view that the mere payment of refundable advance would not lead to grant of proper sanction by the Railway Board and that the said letter cannot be considered, authorising the Mess in question as a non-statutory canteen.
(2.)The matter arose before the High Court of Delhi against order dated 21.09.2010 passed in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009 and against review order dated 16.11.2010 in R.A. No. 295 of 2010 in O.A. No. 2341 of 2009, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby the Tribunal dismissed the plea of the Petitioners-herein to be regularised in the services of the Respondents-herein.
(3.)The aforesaid writ petition was filed against the orders of the Tribunal by the Petitioners in the High Court of Delhi claiming regularization of their services as Railway Employees. The Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment and order dated 30.03.2012, dismissed the said writ petition, on the ground that there was no document placed on record to recognise the Mess, being run at the Signalling and Telecommunication Training Centre, Northern Railway, Ghaziabad (for short, "the S&T Training Centre''), as a non-statutory recognised canteen. The Court held that the said Mess was not sanctioned by the Railway Board, in accordance with Rule 2831 of the Railway Establishment Manual, in order to be classified as a non-statutory recognised canteen. Thereafter, the High Court of Delhi, by order dated 09.05.2014, found no merit in the review petition filed against its judgment and order dated 30.03.2012. The Petitioners, in the review petition before the High Court of Delhi, had additionally placed a letter dated 09.11.1976, an unsigned typed copy, to indicate that an advance had been sanctioned to the Mess Management Committee and that the said advance was approved by the Railway Board vide its letter dated 01.11.1976. However, the High Court was of the view that the mere payment of refundable advance would not lead to grant of proper sanction by the Railway Board and that the said letter cannot be considered, authorising the Mess in question as a non-statutory canteen.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.