IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 25349 OF 2025 (S-CAT)

BETWEEN:

RAVI GANIGER S/O KALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT KOLIWAD POST, HUBLI TALUK, DHARWAD-580023.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA BHAT M.,ADVOCATE)

D igitally AND:

signed by REKHA R Location: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA High Court MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, of Karnataka RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE SECRETARY, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-01.

3. THE GENERAL MANAGER (EST)

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAS, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI-580020.

4. THE GENERAL MANAGER (EST)

RAIL WHEEL FACTORY, YALAHANKA, BANGALORE-64. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANUPAMA HEGDE., CGC FOR R1 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11.07.2025 PASSED BY THE CAT IN MA No-149/2025 FILED IN OA No-174/2025 CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO THE CAT TO DISPOSE OF OA No-174/2025 ON ITS MERITS TO MEET.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD) This petition is by one of the 102 applicants with the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short, 'the Tribunal'] in Application No.174/2025. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 11.07.2025 [Annexure-B], which in its material part reads as under:

"Shri Rakshith R., for the Applicants.

This application has been filed by 102 applicants. But any authorization with the signature of all the 102 applicants has not been filed along with the affidavit of the Applicant No.1. Therefore, the counsel appearing for the applicants is directed to submit the written authorization with the signatures of all the 102 applicants.

The attention is also invited towards the relief column. It appears from the relief claimed that the relief is related to only Applicant No.22. Therefore, the counsel is directed to move an application for amendment in the relief column showing the cause and relief claimed by all the applicants.

The aforesaid application can be moved before the next date."

2. The petitioner and the other applicants, as stated before this Court, have together signed a common vakalath in favour of the learned counsel who has presented the application on their behalf, and on behalf of all the applicants, the petitioner has filed an affidavit to support the application under Rule 4(5)(a)¹ of the Central Administrative Tribunal [Procedure] Rules, 1987 [for short, 'the Rules']. The petitioner is aggrieved because in terms of the first part of the impugned order, every applicant will have to sign a separate authorization.

3. Sri M. Subramanya Bhat, the learned

counsel for the petitioner, canvasses the following on 1 It is submitted that inadvertently the provisions are wrongly

mentioned in the application.

the Tribunal’s direction to file the written authorization with the signatures of all the 102 applicants.

[a] The only procedural requirement in filing a common application is under Rule 4(5)(a) of the Rules, and this Rule does not stipulate that every applicant must independently file an affidavit to support the application.

[b] It should suffice if one applicant on behalf of all the other applicants makes an affirmation to support a request for leave to file a common application.

4. On the second part of the impugned order, Mr. M. Subramanya Bhat submits that the applicants have a common cause but with the difference that the petitioner is issued with Communication dated 02.09.2024 rejecting his claim while the representation by the other applicants is not considered, and as such, while presenting the common application [along with a request for leave