ALTAMAS KABIR, J. - (1.)Challenging an order dated September 8, 1997, issued by the Railway authorities introducing a subsidy system to replace the system of parcel handling by co-operative societies, the private respondents in W.P.C.T. No. 124 of 2001, moved the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal by way of Original Application No. 1158 of 1997, with a prayer for a direction upon the Railway authorities to regularise them as permanent railway servants. Two similar applications, being O.A. No. 1392 of 1997 and 1400 of 1997, were filed by several others. The facts of the three applications and the reliefs prayed for therein being similar, the said applications were taken up for hearing analogously and were disposed of by the learned Tribunal by its common judgment and order dated August 24, 2000.
(2.)While the said applications were pending for hearing, the Railway authorities issued another order dated April 5, 1999, allowing parcel handling work at Bhagalpur Railway Station to the licensed porters of the station. The said respondents also challenged the subsequent decision of the railways by filing a Miscellaneous Application being No. 195 of 1999 and obtained a stay of the said order on July 30, 1999.
(3.)In the meantime, the licensed porters of Bhagalpur Railway Station, Ranjit Mahato and 92 others, filed an application, being M. A. No. 509 of 1999, for being added as parties in O.A. No. 1158 of 1997 on the ground that any decision passed in favour of the original applicants could adversely affect their interest. Considering the facts involved, the said application was allowed and the said applicants were added as parties in the main proceedings. Thereafter, the added parties filed another miscellaneous application, being M.A. No. 510 of 1999, in the original application and prayed for vacating the interim order of stay granted by the Tribunal on July 30, 1999. The same was, however, rejected by the Tribunal by its order dated March 31, 2000. Although, the added parties challenged the stay order of the learned Tribunal, this Court declined to interfere and directed the learned Tribunal to hear out the original application on merit.