Indian Railways Medical Laboratory Technologists Association vs Ministry Of Railways And Anr

Jyoti Singh, J

Hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.

Present writ petition has been filed by the Indian Railways Medical Laboratory Technologists Association through its General Secretary seeking the

follows reliefs:-

“(a) The Members of the Petitioner Association be granted the benefits of 7th CPC at par with the counterparts/Railway Medical

laboratory Staff working under the same Nodal Ministry and w.e.f. from the very day it got implemented i.e. 01.01.2016 and w.e.f. the date

when the said recommendations were implemented by the Govt. of India, Respondent no. 2 and all the arrears etc. be paid to them as

expeditiously as possible preferably in 3 months time from the very day it got implemented i.e. w.e.f. 01.01.2016.

(b) The benefits of the 7th CPC recommendations should be given with effect from the very day it got implemented 1.e. 01.01.2016 with all

consequential benefits including the consequences that entail therewith;

(d) The Costs of the present petition be awarded to the Petitioners and against the Respondents.â€​

The subject matter of the writ petition is a ‘service matter’ and the Petitioner Association comprises of persons working as Lab Assistants,

Lab Technician, Lab Superintendents and Chief Lab Superintendents working in various Central Government Hospitals under the Ministry of Railway

which is covered under the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Petitioner is thus amenable to the jurisdiction of

Central Administrative Tribunal.

This Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present Petition in view of Section 14 (1) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and the judgement

of the Constitution Bench in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India and Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261.

Present Petition is accordingly disposed of, granting liberty to the Petitioners to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.