CW3633/2007

// 1 //

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

ORDER

IN

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3633/2007

With

Civil Misc. 2^nd Stay Appl. No.262/2010

Prabhati Lal Vs. Union of India

through Secretary, Ministry of

Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and

Others

Date of Order ::: 08.11.2013

Present

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

Shri B.M. Sharma, counsel for petitioner

Shri Shailesh Prakash Sharma with

Shri Ganesh Chandra Gupta, counsel for respondents

####

By the Court:-

Petitioner has filed this writ petition for

quashment of the order dated 09.03.2006 (Annexure-8),

whereby his prayer for allotment of railway tea stall

at platform and alternative prayer for compassionate

appointment in the railway department on the premise

that due to his efforts a railway accident was averted,

has been rejected.

One Sukharam, father of petitioner, was working

on the post of Gang-man with the respondents

department. His services were removed due to failure of

vision test. Petitioner, being the son and dependent,

sought employment in the respondent department on

compassionate ground. When he could not get employment

in the railways, he started working as vendor at

railway station since the young age of 13 years. The

petitioner on 28.04.1979 averted the rail accident when

he was working as vendor at railway station and a

certificate was also issued on 28.04.1979 recommending

CW3633/2007

// 2 //

him for certain rewards. On that ground the petitioner

also sought employment but he was refused to be given

appointment. Thereafter the petitioner applied for

allotment of refreshment canteen/stall, but with no

result. Petitioner filed a writ Petition being S.B.

Civil Writ petition No.2249/1997 before this court,

which was disposed of by order dated 10.11.2005 with a

direction to the petitioner to make a representation

before the authorities concerned for allotment of tea

stall/trolley at railway station. The petitioner

submitted his representations on 14.11.2005 and

18.11.2005, which were dismissed vide order dated

09.03.2006. Hence this writ petition.

The respondents in reply to the writ petition

have submitted that in the enquiry it has not been

proved that due to the efforts of the petitioner any

rail accident was averted. Besides, the respondents

also stated that there is no provision with the

railways to allot any tea stall or trolley at railway

station out of turn basis for such category of persons.

Learned counsel for petitioner in the course of

argument, submitted that when earlier writ petition was

filed, the respondents had not denied the fact that

efforts of the petitioner had averted the rail

accident. Learned counsel for respondents, however,

submitted that in reply to earlier writ petition also

the respondents had disputed this fact, which is borne

out from the reply (Annexure-B) at page 34. Perusal of

aforesaid reply indicates that respondents at that time

disputed the fact that the petitioner ever contributed

to avert the rail accident. In fact they stated that no

such fact was in the knowledge of answering respondents

CW3633/2007

// 3 //

and that a story has been made out by the petitioner.

It seems that only a story has been made out by the

petitioner.

Regarding

alternative

prayer

for

compassionate appointment also no such mandamus can be

issued by this court.

The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is

hereby dismissed. This also disposes of the second stay

application.

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

//Jaiman//91

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman

PS-cum-JW