- (1.) This writ petition has been preferred challenging the order dated 25th October, 2013 delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi (Hereinafter to be referred to as the 'CAT') in O.A. No. 106 of 2011(R). The Original Application preferred by these petitioners before the CAT challenging the termination of the services of the petitioners was dismissed by the CAT and hence, these applicants before CAT has preferred this writ petition. Submissions made one behalf of the petitioners
(2.) Counsel for the petitioners submitted that these petitioners were initially appointed as Casual Labour for four days and thereafter, regular appointment was given to these petitioners vide order dated 8th February, 1990 as "Fresh Faces". This order of appointment is at Annexure 2 series to the memo of the writ petition. Thereafter, there was termination of the services of these petitioners vide order dated 10th April, 1990. The said termination order is at Annexure 3 to the memo of this writ petition. This termination order was passed without holding any enquiry or without giving any notice. Appointments of these petitioners were made against "General Manager Quota". Thereafter, O.A. No. 649 of 1991 was preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata and direction was given by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata in the said original application to decide the representation of these petitioners. The same being not decided, again O.A. No. 17 of 1998 was preferred and said O.A. was decided vide order dated 22nd March, 2007 in which a direction was given to the respondents to decide the representation of the these petitioners and Senior Divisional Engineer (Coordination), Chakradharpur vide Order dated 8th November, 2007, rejected the representation of these petitioners. Thereafter, these petitioners again filed O.A. No. 106/2011 (R ) before the CAT and the CAT dismissed the O.A. preferred by these petitioners bearing O.A. No. 106/2011(R) vide order dated 25th October, 2013 mainly on the ground of delay without appreciating the fact that there were a number of correspondences exchanged between the parties to this litigation even after rejection of the representation dated 8th November, 2007. Moreover, there was no need of any experience certificate for the appointment of these petitioners as "Fresh Faces", who were wrongly terminated on 10th April, 1990. No fabricated certificate was required by these petitioners at all. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the CAT and therefore, order delivered by the CAT in O.A. No. 106 of 2011(R), dated 25th October, 2013 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Submissions made on behalf of the Respondents
(3.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that no error has been committed by the CAT in dismissing O.A. No. 106 of 2011(R ) because there was gross delay on the part of the petitioners which has not been explained at all. The representation was decided on 8th November, 2007, whereas O.A. No. 106 of 2011 (R ) was preferred after four years. The termination order, which was passed by the respondents on 10th April, 1990, cannot be adjudicated in 2013 in O.A. No. 106 of 2011(R ) and no order can be passed for re-engagement after a lapse of 23 years. Even otherwise, on merit also, a false and fabricated certificate of experience was presented by these petitioners and therefore, their services were terminated on 10th April, 1990 after their appointment on 8th February, 1990, i.e. just within a period of two months. Moreover, no advertisement was published for the post in question. Hence, no error has been committed by the CAT in deciding O.A. No. 106 of 2011(R) vide Order dated 25th October, 2013. Even this writ petition has been preferred after two years of dismissal of O.A. No. 106 of 2011 (R ). REASONS :;