AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer-II with the Central Railways at Mumbai vide office order dated 9th May, 2006.
The respondent-Corporation issued a memo dated 9th February, 2016 regarding its requirement of staff on deputation basis. It was mentioned in the
said notice that the deputation would be on usual terms for five years. It is not in dispute that the respondent-Corporation is controlled by the Ministry
of Railway, Government of India and the Government is the major share holder of the corporation.
The petitioner applied for being placed on deputation with the respondent-Corporation. By a memo dated 8th September, 2016, the respondent-
Corporation conveyed to the Chief Administrative Officer, Central Railway the acceptance of the petitioner on deputation basis against the post of
Assistant Project Manager (Engineering) at the respondent-Corporation in Kolkata for a period of five years. Subsequently, the petitioner was posted
at Koderma. The immediate grievance of the petitioner is issuance of a memo dated 8th November, 2018 by the respondent-Corporation whereby the
petitioner has been sought to be repatriated.
The petitioner has made a representation dated 16th November, 2018 to the Director (PP) of the respondent-Corporation for redressal of his
grievance. The petitioner prays for an early decision on such representation.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondents challenges the maintainability of the writ petition. According to him, in view of Section 14 of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, this writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner is required to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal.
Without going into the question of maintainability of the writ petition, since a representation has been made by the petitioner, in my opinion ends of
justice will be subserved if such representation is decided at an early date.
Accordingly, I direct the Director (PP) of the respondent-Corporation being the respondent No.2 to take a reasoned decision on the representation of
the petitioner in accordance with the applicable rules and/or regulations and/or circulars and/or notifications within a period of six weeks from the date
of communication of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative who shall not be an advocate.
The decision so taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within one week from the date of the decision.
I have not gone into the merits of the petitioner’s case. The respondent No.2 shall take an informed decision in accordance with law.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been invited, the allegations contained in the writ petition are deemed not to be admitted.
A.S.T. 81 of 2018 is, accordingly, disposed of.
There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.