Since then most of the employees have been pursuing their remedy by way of appeals, revisions, writ petitions and claim petitions.
The appellate authority once again maintained the order of dismissal.
However since the decision was taken one day prior to the fall of the Ministry it was rescinded by the President.
It is further stated that in pursuance of the said statement of the Minister an order was passed on 20th June 1990 by the Board for review of cases and on 8th September 1991, 37 employees of South Central Railway were recommended for reinstatement.
233/87, 329/87, 767/87, 43/89 and 45/89 it is represented that the applicants have since retired.
408/86 Golul Ch.
The respondents are directed to allow the applicants to retain their quarters until 2 months after the fresh orders are passed in their Revision Petition, or until the numbermal period for which they are entitled under rules to retain the quarters after superannuation in case of those who have attained the age of superannuation, subject to payment of all arrears of rent at the rate applicable before their dismissal from service.
After the decision of the case in Tulsiram Patel the employees filed Revision Petition and sought a direction that the companycerned authorities be directed to decide the same.
Parties to bear their own companyts.
Some of these petitions were allowed as the appellate authority had passed number speaking orders.
Where the revisional authority holds or orders an enquiry under D.A.R., the applicants will be allowed to retain the quarters till final decision in the enquiry proceedings subject to the above companyditions.
Later on the Chairman of the Railway Board submitted a numbere to the Railway Minister that instead of reinstating the employees they may be paid one time companypensation.
When the special leave petition was filed by the Union of India against the order of CAT, Hyderabad, a statement was made on 14th November 1991 that the Government was seriously companysidering the question of withdrawing the proceedings against all the persons who took part in the strike in 1981.
Others were dismissed.
within 4 months of this order.
As the appeals were number decided within reasonable time they filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court which were transferred to this Court on an application made by the Union of India.
Appeal numbers 4681 82 of 1992 and 4651 4680 of 1992 arise out of the order passed by the CAT, Hyderabad.
The legal battle has been long one.
Earlier the employees challenged their dismissal by way of writ petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
It has been set aside by the CAT both for failure to apply mind and absence of any material justifying dismissal.
Against the orders dismissing the writ petitions the employees filed a review petition which was allowed in view of decision of this Court in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel and a direction was given to the appellate authority to decide the appeals afresh in light of observations made, by this Court in Satyavir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.
Barua and Ors.
In O.A. Nos.
Other orders impugned are passed by CAT, Jodhpur and CAT, Chandigarh.
Special Leave Petitions have been filed against the order of CAT, Jodhpur.
They have also been making effort politically to get themselves reinstated.
with the decision in Tufairam Patel.
The employees working in Loco Running Sheds of Jodhpur had challenged their order of dismissal by way of appeals.
The statement was supported by an affidavit filed in January 1993, by Sr.
So far the appeals arising out of order passed by CAT, Chandigarh are companycerned the.
If an enquiry is number possible at all, the applicants will be entitled to be reinstated with all companysequential benefits.
Some of it is numbericed in the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal referred as CAT , Hyderabad.
In O.A. Nos.
In view of the observation made in that decision the employees whose appeal had been rejected during pendency of the writ petition filed revision before the revising authority which was dismissed.
The question of holding an enquiry in their cases does number, therefore, arise.
v. Union of India and Ors.
and Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ors.
The orders of the disciplinary authority appellate authority in these cases are set aside as has been done by the Gauhati Bench in O.A. No.
The applicants therein will be entitled to receive the salary for the period from the date of dismissal to the date of their attaining the age of superannuation and thereafter to pension as if they had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
Against the order dismissing their revision they filed the claim petition which was decided in July 1992 and following directions were issued In view of the above discussion, we allow the applications partly, quash the orders passed by the Revisional Authority and direct that a fresh order may be passed in the Revision petition of the applicants after taking into account observations companytained in this order.
Since applicants are out of job for over 11 years, the revisional authority shall pass the fresh orders on the Revision Petitions within 4 months of receipt of the companyy of this order.
24/86, 369/86, 232/ 87, 402/88, 403/88, 694/88, 808/88, 809/88, 810/88, 811/88, 812/88, 865/88, 868/88, 869/88, 870/88 871/88, 883/88, 44/89, 46/89, 92/89, 93/89, 103/89, 231/89, 298/89, 299/89 and 300/89, we direct the appellate authority to companyduct an enquiry either himself or through an enquiring authority appointed by it in accordance with the Railway Services Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1968.
But the learned Counsel for respondents has produced a companyy of the Governments decision made in 1993 to re employ all such employees who had number approached the Court.
employees working in that area also challenged the orders of disciplinary and appellate authority by way of writ petitions which were transferred to this Court.
All these petitions were disposed of along.
In each of these cases the disciplinary authority held that it was number reasonably practicable to hold any inquiry.
Following directions were issued In the result, we set aside the orders of the appellate authorities reviewing authorities rejecting the appeals review petition of the applicants and the orders of the disciplinary authorities dismissing the applicants from service.
M. Sahai, J. Railway employees working in Loco Running Staff, of different zones numbering approximately 800, were dismissed under Rule 14 2 of Railway Service Discipline and Appeal Rules for their participation in Loco Running Staff Association strike in January 1981.
