Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Ram Phal and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Ram Phal and ors. vs Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Delhi Decided May 16, 2002
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/699882

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Delhi High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.W.P. No. 2478 of 2002
Subject
Service
Disposition
Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

The case dealt with the writ petition filed against the application filed challenging the termination of the petitioners from the service - In the instant case, the petitioners engaged as a casual labourers in 1984-85 in northern railway, were terminated - The said termination was challenged on the ground of re-enga...

Key legal issue
Service
Outcome / disposition
Petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ram Phal and ors.

Advocate P.S. Mehandru, Adv

Respondent

Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Advocate Nemo

Legal References

Cases Referred
Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India and Ors.
Reported In
98(2002)DLT564

Excerpt

the case dealt with the writ petition filed against the application filed challenging the termination of the petitioners from the service - in the instant case, the petitioners engaged as a casual labourers in 1984-85 in northern railway, were terminated - the said termination was challenged on the ground of re-engagement of juniors to the petitioners - in view of the fact, it was ruled that the application challenging the termination was barred by limitation - thereforee, the writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india, was liable to be dismissed - s.b. sinha, c.j.1. the original applicants before the central administrative tribunal principal bench, new delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the tribunal') are the writ petitioners herein.2. they were engaged as casual labourers in 1984-85 in the office of permanent way inspector (pwi), northern railway jakhal junction by the respondent no. 3 herein. their services were terminated.3. the contention of the petitioners before the tribunal was that although their juniors had been re-engaged, despite the fact that they worked for lesser number of days than the petitioners, they had not been given the said benefit. 4. the contention of the respondents inter alias was that the application was barred by limitation.5. it is not in dispute that the question of limitation had been considered by a full bench of the tribunal in mahabir and ors. v. union of india and ors., 2000 (3) atj 1 in o.a. no. 786/96 disposed of on 10.05.2000.6. the question of limitation is also covered by a decision of the apex court in udam singh kamal and ors. v. union of india and ors., 2000 scc 537. however, the writ petitioners herein inter alias relied upon a decision of a division bench of this court in shish pal singh and ors. v. union of india in cwp no. 5071/99 disposed of on 23.08.1999, wherein an observation had been made that the cause of action is a continuous one.8. doubting the correctness of the said decision, the matter has been referred to the full bench of this court in jagdish prasad v. union of india and ors. in c.w.p. no. 450 of 2001 disposed of on 07.05.2002, wherein the full bench has held that shish pal singh's case (supra) does not lay down a correct law. 9. following the aforementioned full bench decision, we have no other option to hold that the judgment of the tribunal is unassailable.10. this writ petition is dismissed accordingly. however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Full Judgment

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. The original applicants before the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') are the writ petitioners herein.

2. They were engaged as casual labourers in 1984-85 in the Office of Permanent Way Inspector (PWI), Northern Railway Jakhal Junction by the respondent No. 3 herein. Their services were terminated.

3. The contention of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that although their juniors had been re-engaged, despite the fact that they worked for lesser number of days than the petitioners, they had not been given the said benefit.

4. The contention of the respondents inter alias was that the application was barred by limitation.

5. It is not in dispute that the question of limitation had been considered by a Full Bench of the Tribunal in Mahabir and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 (3) ATJ 1 in O.A. No. 786/96 disposed of on 10.05.2000.

6. The question of limitation is also covered by a decision of the Apex Court in Udam Singh Kamal and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2000 SCC 53

7. However, the writ petitioners herein inter alias relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Shish Pal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India in CWP No. 5071/99 disposed of on 23.08.1999, wherein an observation had been made that the cause of action is a continuous one.

8. Doubting the correctness of the said decision, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench of this Court in Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India and Ors. in C.W.P. No. 450 of 2001 disposed of on 07.05.2002, wherein the Full Bench has held that Shish Pal Singh's case (supra) does not lay down a correct law.

9. Following the aforementioned Full Bench decision, we have no other option to hold that the judgment of the Tribunal is unassailable.

10. This writ petition is dismissed accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial