- (1.) THE petitioners-Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Head Quarter Office, Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as 'NCR') and two others aggrieved by the order dated 13.4.2005 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad have filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE Tribunal has allowed Original Application No. 1605 of 2004 filed by Hub Lal Saroj, respondent No. 2. The order dated 1.11.2005 impugned in the Original Application has been quashed with the direction to the petitioners in this writ petition to retain lien and seniority of respondent No. 2 in Ministerial Cadre, Engineering Department of North Central Railway Head Quarter, Allahabad and to allow him to continue in the said Railways with a further direction to consider him for promotion to higher grade post in accordance with law. Sri B. B. Paul, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has strongly assailed the order of Tribunal on the ground that the respondent No. 2 had earlier approached the Tribunal in O. A. No. 730 of 1996 against repatriation order dated 22.5.1996 and 31.12.1996 wherein the Tribunal vide judgment dated 10.12.2000 upheld repatriation order and rejected Original Application. The authorities passed order on 1.11.2004 as a consequence of earlier litigation and, therefore, it could have not given rise to any new cause of action. The subsequent Original Application, therefore, was barred by the principle of res judicata inasmuch for the same cause of action, successive petition is not maintainable and placed reliance on Daryao and others v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1961 SC 1457; Aajeet Prasad Gupta v. State of U.P., AIR 1997 SC 3425; Rakesh Kumar Agarwal v. State Bank of India, 2003 (3) ESC 1333 and Bhula Singh v. State of Punjab, 2004 (6) SCC 126.
(3.) HE further contended that the respondent No. 2 was guilty of playing fraud and misrepresentation and has obtained order by concealment of fact, therefore, the order of Tribunal is a nullity since fraud and justice do not dwell together. He also placed reliance on S. P. Chengal Varya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 ACJ 355 and JT 1996 (7) SC 135, Indian Bank v. M/s. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Head Note '2', Paras 20, 22, 23).;