Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Vs.
under:-
Parawise comments :
1. No comments.
been filed as per extant rules and policy as such the same are
maintainable.
3. No comments.
4. That the contents of para 4 of the rejoinder reply are not admitted in
promotion not only from a lower grade to a higher grade but also,
from one class to another class, from one group to another group.
identical The incumbent of the post of the Stock Verifier are paid Rs.
150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay on passing the prescribed Appendix IV
150/-(now Rs. 240/-) is taken into account for pay fixation on further
5. No comments.
6. No comments.
pay of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 240/-) is taken into account for pay
of para 03 of the counter reply stating the brief facts of the case are
reiterated.
9. No comments.
10. All facts have already been explained in Additional Member /
Stock Verifier.
12. That in reply to the contents of para 12 it is submitted that order dated
13. No comments.
14. That the contents of para 14 of the rejoinder reply are not admitted in
promotion not only from a lower grade to a higher grade but also
from one class to another class, from one group to another group.
Verifier and Account Asstt. are identical The incumbent of the post of
the Stock Verifier are paid Rs. 150 (now Rs. 240) Special Pay on
the element of special pay of Rs. 150/-(now Rs. 24/-) is taken into
account for pay fixation on further promotion on the post of Sr. Stock
15. No comments.
16. No comments.
17. That the contents and allegations made in para 17 are denied
and
18. That the contents and allegations made in para 18 are denied and in
and the same has been condoned by Railway Board as per letter dt.
20. No comments.
21. That the contents of the para 21 of the rejoinder are not admitted in
the forms as stated and in reply thereto the contents of the para 17 of
22. No comments.
23. That in reply to para 23 it is submitted that in DLW there was only
and Sri Rai erroneously as decided by the Railway Board vide letter
dt. 6/9.1.2006 .
24. That in reply to para 24, it is submitted that in DLW cadre of Stock
only seniority list of Account Asstt. was being maintained since 1985
Asstt. and promoted and posted on the post of Stock Verifier from a
later panel then he stands junior to the one who join as Stock Verifier
25. That the contents and allegation of the para 25 are denied and it is
submitted that the seniority list issued on 01-10-2004 for the post of
Sr. Stock Verifier, the matter was considered by the Railway Board
and Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 settled the issue in
the light of relevant rules on the subject.
27. Not admitted and in reply thereto the contents of the para 03
28. Not admitted and reply thereto the contents of para 22 of the
29. Not admitted and in reply thereto the contents of para 23 of the
30. No comments.
31. The contents are denied and reply thereto the contents of para
32. No comments.
33. No comments.
34. No comments.
35. No comments.
36. Already replied in preceding paragraph hence no needs for
further comments.
further comments.
further comments.
40. No comments.
41. No comments.
42. In view of the facts stated in para 03 stating breif history of the
case the claim of the petitioner is not tenable and he is not entitled for any
Hon’ble Tribunal.
Dated- ......-9-2006
Tribunal Act, 1985. The deponent has understood the contents thereof and as
PARAWISE REPLY
comments.
6. That the contents of para 4.1 of the petition are matter of record and
need no comments.
7. 7. That the contents of para 4.4 of the petition are matter of record
O.A.) expressed his inability to join on the post of Stock Verifier for
Mohd. Jamaluddin whose name finds place at Sr. No. 2 of the panel
dt. 5-9-94 was promoted on the post of Stock Verifier vide order dt. 5-
1-95.
9. 10. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.7 are denied
11. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.8 are denied and in
12. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.9 are matter of record
13. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.10 of the petition are
14. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.11 & 4.12 are matter
15. That in reply to para 4.13 of the petition it is submitted that in DLW
seniority list of Stock Verifiers dt. 1.10.2004 the petitioner has been
16. That in reply to para 4.14 of the petition it is submitted that in DLW
the post of Stock Verifier from a later panel then he stands junior to
the one who join as Stock Verifier from earlier panel. This is a
17. That the contents and allegation of the para 4.15 of the petition are
for the post of Stock Verifiers was objected by the respondent No. 4 &
Sr. Stock Verifier, the matter was considered by the Railway Board
and Railway Board vide their letter dt. 6/9.1.2006 settled the issue in
18. That in reply to para 4.16 of the petition it is submitted that the
19. That in reply to para 4.17 of the petition it is submitted that since the
Verifier and to join later on, he stands junior to the other two
incumbent on the post of Stock Verifier therefore, he can not be
case.
20. That the contents of the para 4.18 of the petition are denied and in
Administration in the matter. The Railway Board vide there letter dt.
21. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.19 of the petition are
denied and in reply there to the order dt. 9.1.2006 passed by the
22. That in reply to para 4.20 of the petition it is submitted that the
the subject and disposed the same by a reasoned and speaking order
23. That the contents of para 4.21 & 4.22 of the application is matter of
24. That the contents of para 4.23 of the petition are denied and in reply
Stock Verifier as clarified by the Railway Board vide their letter dt.
25. That the contents of para 4.24 of the petition are denied and in reply
26. That the contents of para 4.25 of the petition are denied and in reply
clarified vide Railway Board vide letter dt. 6/9.1.2006, the post of a
case.
27. That the contents of para 4.26 of the petition is a matter of record and
need no comments.
28. That the contents of para 4.27 & 4.28 of the petition is denied and in
reply thereto it is submitted that during the alleged period i.e. between
such their was no occasion to raise objection by the two other Stock
29. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.29 of the petition are
denied and in reply thereto it is submitted that the order dt. 9.1.2006 is
in accordance with the rules on the subject and has been passed by the
Railway Board after due application of mind and considering the full
30. That the contents of para 4.30 & 4.31 of the petition are matter of
record.
31. That the contents and allegations made in para 4.32 of the petition are
from the post of Sr. Stock Verifier to the post of Stock Verifier has
been taken in accordance with the order passed by the Railway Board
32. That the contents of para 4.33 of the petition are denied and in reply
thereto the contents of para 7 of this counter reply are reiterated.
33. That in reply to para 4.34 of the petition it is submitted that no action
in the para under reply has been initiated keeping in view the interim
34. That in view of the facts stated in this counter reply the applicant has
neither any prima-facie case nor cause of action to file the present
35. That contents of para 5 of the claim petition are denied. It is further
stated that the grounds raised in the claim petition being devoid of any
merit and being based on misconception of facts and law are not
37. That the averments made in para 7 of the claim petition are
38. That the contents of para 8 of the claim petition are denied. It is
further stated that for the facts and circumstances stated above the
petitioner is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the para under
further stated that no case whatsoever is made out for granting interim
relief, especially when the main relief and interim relief are
substantially the same and the interim order dated 10. 7. 2006 passed
40. That even otherwise the claim petition lacks merits and deserves to be
V E R I FI CAT I O N
Hon’ble Tribunal.
Dated- ......-9-2006