{"id":75114,"date":"2002-03-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-03-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002"},"modified":"2018-09-06T12:16:30","modified_gmt":"2018-09-06T06:46:30","slug":"patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002","title":{"rendered":"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Sinha<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>  S.B. Sinha, C.J.  <\/p>\n<p> 1. Whether the petitioner herein is entitled to the benefit of a judgment of the<br \/>\nApex Court despite the fact that his earlier applications were rejected is the short question<br \/>\ninvolved in this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. The petitioner was a railway servant. He was dismissed from service in<br \/>\nterms of Rule 14(2) of Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1968 (in short,<br \/>\n&#8216;the Rules&#8217;) without initiating any disciplinary proceeding. He filed a writ petition in the<br \/>\nAllahabad High Court questioning the validity of the said order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. However, having regard to the fact that several writ petitions were pending<br \/>\nin different High Courts, Union of India made an application under Article 139(A) of the<br \/>\nConstitution of India (in short, &#8216;the Constitution&#8217;) for transferring the petitions pending<br \/>\nbefore the Supreme Court, which was allowed.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. The Apex Court in  <a href=\"\/doc\/1134697\/\">Union of India and Anr. v. Tulsiram Patel<\/a>  while upholding the validity of Rule 14(ii) of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal)<br \/>\nRules held that even an enquiry as contemplated there under could be held at the appellate<br \/>\nas well as revisional stage.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Pursuant to and in furtherance of the observations made by the Apex<br \/>\nCourt, the petitioner filed an appeal before Divisional Railway Manager, North Eastern<br \/>\nRailway, Izzat Nagar, Bareily. According to the petitioner as no order was passed<br \/>\nthereon he filed an application before the Tribunal being O.A. No. 300 of 1987. The said<br \/>\nappeal appears to be dismissed by an order dated 18.08.1981.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. The petitioner thereafter filed a revision petition before the revisional<br \/>\nauthority purported to be under Rule 25 of the Rules praying therein for quashing the<br \/>\norder of removal dated 03.02.1981 as also the order of appellate authority dated<br \/>\n18.08.1981 in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in  Tulsiram Patel (Supra)<br \/>\nand   Satya Vir Singh &amp; Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.,  .\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. As allegedly, the said revision petition was not decided, the petitioner<br \/>\nagain filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi<br \/>\n(in short, &#8216;the Tribunal&#8217;), which was marked as O.A. No. 2361 of 1998. The said<br \/>\noriginal application was dismissed but an order dated 19.01.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. The petitioner contends that as the counsel for the petitioner did not appear<br \/>\nbefore the Tribunal, the judgment of the apex Court in   <a href=\"\/doc\/175191\/\">Union of India and Ors. v. R.<br \/>\nReddappa and Anr.<\/a>   could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. On legal advice, a representation to the Railway Board for consideration<br \/>\nand grant of similar relief was made by the petitioner on 19.02.1995. No reply thereto<br \/>\nhaving been received, the petitioner filed another original application before the Tribunal<br \/>\non 31.10.1995, which was marked as O.A. No. 49 of 1996. By reason of the impugned<br \/>\norder dated 19.03.1999, the said application has been dismissed. Hence this writ petition.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\npetitioner, would contend that the case of the petitioner is similarly situated to all the<br \/>\nemployees, who had been employed in Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. According to the learned counsel having regard to the fact that similar<br \/>\nrelief having been granted to the employees similarly situated, the petitioner should also be held to be entitled thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. In this connection, or attention has been drawn to an unreported decision<br \/>\nof the Apex Court in   A. Devadanam v. Railway Board and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 759 of 1998,  wherein it has been held thus:-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;There is no doubt considerable force in the<br \/>\narguments advanced by Mr. Malhotra that these applicants<br \/>\nnot having assailed the order of dismissal of their Writ<br \/>\npetition by Andhra Pradesh High Court should not be<br \/>\nentitled to any relief. But on reading the judgment of this<br \/>\nCourt, we find that the relief which is granted on a finding<br \/>\nthat the exercise of power to termination was found to be<br \/>\narbitrary and the Court observed that there cannot be any<br \/>\njustification for taking the benefit to the employee<br \/>\nconcerned. The Court noted that it is satisfied that the<br \/>\nparticipants in the strike were unjustly treated and it went on<br \/>\nto observe that the Court is not only competent but has an<br \/>\nobligation to act in a manner which may be just and fair. It<br \/>\nis this approach of the Court, which Mr. Sachhar invokes in<br \/>\nthe present case. Having regard to the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances in these appeals, we therefore dispose of<br \/>\nthese appeals with the direction that the applicants in C.A.<br \/>\nNos. 758, 759 and 761\/1998 would be re-instated in service<br \/>\nand continue in service till they are superannuated or<br \/>\notherwise terminated in accordance with law. Needless to<br \/>\nmention they would not be entitled to any back wages. The<br \/>\napplicants in C.A. Nos. 760 and 762\/1998, who have already<br \/>\nsuperannuated, question of nay direction for re-instatement<br \/>\nwould not arise but following the direction of this court in<br \/>\nthe earlier case, we would also direct that they be paid 3<br \/>\nyears salary as compensation and this should be paid within<br \/>\n3 months from today. The applicant in C.A. No. 763\/1998<br \/>\nhaving already died their dependents also would be entitled<br \/>\nto receive 3 years salary as was directed by this Court in the<br \/>\ncase referred to earlier and this should be paid within 3<br \/>\nmonths from today.\n<\/p>\n<p> So far as those in whose favor we are issuing<br \/>\ndirection for re-instatement though they would not be<br \/>\nentitled to any back wages but they would be entitled to get<br \/>\nthe continuity of service for the purposes of calculation their<br \/>\npensionary benefits, if any, If any of these applicants have<br \/>\nreceived the ex-gratia payment made pursuance to the<br \/>\ndirection of the Board by order dated 18.9.1992 they will<br \/>\nrefund\/adjust the same.\n<\/p>\n<p> In case of applicants who have already<br \/>\nsuperannuated or who has died, apart from getting<br \/>\ncompensation as already stated, they would also get the<br \/>\nbenefit of continuity of service notionally till their<br \/>\nsuperannuation or death as the case may be and if they are<br \/>\nentitled to any retiral benefit on that basis, according to the<br \/>\nrules, then the same be given.\n<\/p>\n<p> It is stated by Mr. Malhotra that this order may open<br \/>\na flood gate for several other employees similarly situated.<br \/>\nWe make it clear that any person who has not approached<br \/>\nany Tribunal or any Court as on today will not be entitled to<br \/>\nget the benefit of this order.\n<\/p>\n<p> The appeals are disposed of with the aforesaid<br \/>\ndirections.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. Mr. Jagjit Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nrespondent, on the other hand, would contend that the original application filed by the<br \/>\npetitioner herein was barred under the principles of res judicata.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. It is beyond any cavil of doubt that the principles of res judicata    would<br \/>\napply in a proceeding before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\napplication was dismissed by the Tribunal by a speaking order. The petitioner did not<br \/>\nquestion the said order before the appropriate forum. The said order, therefore, attained finality.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. The final order passed by a competent court of law may be right or wrong,<br \/>\nbut once it attains finality, the same cannot be reopened. Only because a decision of the Apex Court could not be brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the same by itself, in our opinion, cannot be held to be a ground for giving any further relief to  a party.\n<\/p>\n<p> 16. It is trite that when a proceeding has attained finality, an application<br \/>\nclaiming further relief, is not permissible.\n<\/p>\n<p> 17. <a href=\"\/doc\/1903982\/\">In   Rajendra Deva v. Hari Fertilizers Sahupuri, Varanasi<\/a>    , the Apex Court held thus :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;7. On a perusal of the order dated 18-1-1996 and the<br \/>\nconsideration of the matter in the context of the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case emerging from the records, we are<br \/>\nof the view that the contention raised by Shri Dwivedi has<br \/>\nsubstance. By making the observation in the order that the<br \/>\nquestion of law is left open this Court did not lay down that<br \/>\nthe petitioner should be given another opportunity to lay<br \/>\nfurther claim under the same head after receiving the<br \/>\namount as directed in the order. In all probability, taking<br \/>\ninto consideration the fat that the petitioner was a person<br \/>\nwho had lost service due to closure of the industrial unit and<br \/>\nthe bonus claimed by him was a small amount of Rs. 3,860\/-<br \/>\nthis Court was not inclined to consider the question of law<br \/>\nwhether the minimum bonus provided under Section 10 of<br \/>\nthe Payment of Bonus Act comes within the purview of the<br \/>\ndefinition of the term &#8220;wages&#8221; under Section 2(vi) of the<br \/>\nPayment of Wages Act and directed payment of law open for<br \/>\nto the petitioner leaving the question of law open for<br \/>\ndecision in an appropriate case. The petitioner appears to be<br \/>\nunder a misconception that under the observations made by<br \/>\nthis Court another opportunity has been granted to him to<br \/>\nfile a fresh case for the same purpose.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 18. In the aforementioned situation, we are of the opinion that the decision of<br \/>\nthe Apex Court in   A. Devadanam (supra)  is not attracted in the instant case.\n<\/p>\n<p> 19. It is true that in  A. Devadnam (Supra), the Apex Court in view of its<br \/>\nearlier decision in  R. Redappa (Supra), granted some relief. Such a relief can be granted<br \/>\nby the Apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution,<br \/>\nwhich power this Court does not possess. Furthermore in  A. Devadanam (Supra), an<br \/>\nappeal was filed before the Apex Court after a long time whereas in this case, the<br \/>\npetitioner intends to re-open a proceeding by filing repeated application although the<br \/>\nentire order of the Tribunal attained finality.\n<\/p>\n<p> 20. Furthermore, the Apex Court did not have any occasion to consider the<br \/>\nquestion where the claim has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground of its being<br \/>\nbarred under principles of  res judicata.\n<\/p>\n<p> 21. While exercising its power to judicial review under Article 226 of the<br \/>\nConstitution having regard to the decision of the Apex Court in   <a href=\"\/doc\/1524908\/\">L. Chandra Kumar v.<br \/>\nUnion of India and Ors.<\/a>  , this Court is concerned only with the question as to whether the<br \/>\njudgment of the Tribunal suffers from illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety.\n<\/p>\n<p> 22. In the aforementioned situation, the only question, which arises for<br \/>\nconsideration in this writ petition, is as to whether the judgment of the Tribunal can be<br \/>\nsaid to be contrary to law. In our opinion, it is not.\n<\/p>\n<p> 23. Furthermore, the petitioner was dismissed from service from 03.02.1981<br \/>\nand his original application was dismissed not only by the Allahabad High Court on<br \/>\n06.05.1987, but also by the Tribunal on 19.01.1994.\n<\/p>\n<p> 24. The petitioner sent a representation to the Railway Board only on<br \/>\n26.06.1985, which was not maintainable. A new cause of action for approaching the<br \/>\nTribunal did not arise only because the petitioner had chosen to file a representation.\n<\/p>\n<p> 25. In   Narayan Singh Solanki v. Union of India and Ors.  (2000) 9 SCC 321, the Apex Court held<br \/>\nas under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;3. Learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the<br \/>\nargument urged before the Tribunal. His case is that the<br \/>\ncase of the appellant is covered by Rule 102 of the Rules.<br \/>\nWe are not inclined to go into the merits of the matter as<br \/>\nwe are of the view that the appellant having resigned from<br \/>\nthe service and accepted his provident fund in the year<br \/>\n1963 and thereafter remained silent for nearly 28 years, and<br \/>\ntherefore, demand for change in option in the year 1992 did<br \/>\nnot deserve to be entertained. In fact the appellant was<br \/>\nguilty of laches and, therefore, not entitled to change his<br \/>\noption for pension. On this short question, we dismiss this<br \/>\nappeal. There shall be no order as to costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 26. <a href=\"\/doc\/1586768\/\">In   Amrit Lal Berry v. Collector of Central Excise, New Delhi and Ors.<\/a>  , the<br \/>\nApex Court observed as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;We do not think, that, merely be filing repeated or<br \/>\ndelayed representations, a petitioner can get over the<br \/>\nobstacles which delay in approaching the Court creates<br \/>\nbecause equitable rights of others have arisen.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> 27. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opinion that no case has<br \/>\nbeen made out for interference with the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<p> 28. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, in the facts and<br \/>\ncircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, A Sikri JUDGMENT S.B. Sinha, C.J. 1. Whether the petitioner herein is entitled to the benefit of a judgment of the Apex Court despite the fact that his earlier applications were rejected is the short [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75114","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-06T06:46:30+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T06:46:30+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2029,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\",\"name\":\"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-06T06:46:30+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-06T06:46:30+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002","datePublished":"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T06:46:30+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002"},"wordCount":2029,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002","name":"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-03-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-06T06:46:30+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patras-vs-chairman-railway-board-and-ors-on-16-march-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patras vs Chairman, Railway Board And Ors. on 16 March, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75114","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75114"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75114\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75114"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75114"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75114"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}