JUDGMENT Poonam Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The order dated 9.3.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad in O.A. No. 997 of 2005-ShivJi Mishra and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., is impugned in this writ petition. The Central Administrative Tribunal has directed the Railway Administration to act upon the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), New Delhi. Entitlement by way of refund was to be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the certified copy of the order. Union of India alongwith Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), Head Quarters Office North Central, Allahabad and Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, North Central Railway, Kanpur are the petitioners in this writ petition.
3. The controversy revolves round the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager / Assistant Commercial Manager whereby the refund in full was allowed under Rule 213.14 Part-I, Volume-I of Coaching Tariff No. XXIV of the Indian Railway Conference Association (hereinafter referred to as the Relevant Rules).
4. The facts giving rise to the dispute is that the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 were booking clerk at Kanpur Railway Station of the Northern Railway on 9.10.1997. Train No. 4518 Down Unchahar Express travelling from Ambala to Allahabad could not complete its Journey and was terminated at Kanpur Railway Station. The contesting respondents refunded the entire value of the tickets from the starting station in terms of the Relevant Rules mentioned aforesaid. The question raised was whether the passengers, who were refunded the amount, were entitled for the entire refund of the fare or only the amount of fare for the distance not covered. The matter was referred to the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds), New Delhi by its letter dated 17.11.1997 who agreed with the respondents and passed an order dated 30.4.1998 that the refund was correctly made in accordance with Relevant Rules. The respondents were aggrieved on account of the reason that despite the aforesaid order, a debit list was prepared on 28.2.2000 and the amount shown against each of the respondents were to be deducted from their salary vide order dated 16.3.2004. This order was passed on 16.3.2004 by the Chief Booking Supervisor North Central Railway, Kanpur. The order was challenged by the respondents in Original Application Nos. 409 of 2004 and 390 of 2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad. The order dated 16.3.2004 was quashed by the Tribunal on 23.12.2004. The case of the railway administration was that the respondents erred in refunding the entire amount from the initial journey whereas the refund could only be made in accordance with Relevant Rules for the untravelled distance alone, and that too only if the railway administration was not able to arrange for the destination station by any diverted route or by arranging transshipment or otherwise, and the passengers were not willing to avail of such an alternative arrangement. It is admitted by the Chief Commercial Manager (Refunds) North Central, Allahabad by its letter dated 30.4.1998 that since no alternative arrangements were made therefore, the refund of the entire amount was correct. It appears that the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the earlier applications was sought to be reviewed by the competent authority. By means of a review application No. 27 of 2001, the matter was again placed for consideration before the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager, North Central Railway, Kanpur on 15.3.2004. The Deputy Chief Traffic Manager re-examined the matter in the review application and passed an order dated 15/16.3.2004 holding that the debit raised by the Traffic inspector Account was justified. This-order was once again challenged by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in O.A. Nos. 390 of 2004 and 409 of 2004 which was disposed of with the direction to the concerned authority to decide the matter afresh by giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. A counter reply was filed on behalf of the Railway Administration that a report was submitted by the Senior Traffic inspector Account vide report No. 03/1997 dated 14.5.1997 where it was pointed out that the alternative arrangement for passenger for onward Journey beyond Kanpur was available and, therefore, the passengers were not entitled for any refund whatsoever. This order was challenged in O.A. No. 996 of 2004 which was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 9.11.2004 directing the Deputy Chief Traffic Manager North Central Railway, Kanpur to decide the representation by affording personal hearing to the respondents. in O.A. Nos. 390 of 2004 and 409 of 2004 similar questions were involved in other original applications and therefore, they were disposed of by the similar directions on 13.12.2004. The Joint representation of all the respondents was decided by a common order dated 13.12.2004. This order was challenged in O.A. No. 997 of 2005 which was decided by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad against the petitioners and is impugned in the instant writ petition.
5. A copy of the Relevant Rules is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition which is quoted below:
213.14. Discontinuation of Journey due to dislocation of trainservices.--(1) When a train Journey is dislocated en route due to unforeseen circumstances, such as accidents, breaches and floods, fare and reservation fee for the entire booked Journey without any deduction for the travelled portion and without levy of cancellation charge shall be refunded at the station at which the Journey is terminated under the following circumstances:
(a) when the railway is unable to carry the passenger to the destination station within a reasonable time by arranging transshipment or diversion or otherwise; or
(b) when the passenger is involved in a railway accident and/or injured in the accident and does not continue his journey; or
(c) in the case of death or in jury to a passenger in a railway accident, the kith and kin of the passenger have to terminate the journey.
(2) Where the railway administration offers to carry the passenger to his destination by any diverted route or by arranging transshipment or otherwise, and the passenger is not willing to avail of such an alternative arrangement, fare for the untravelled portion of the Journey shall be refunded, without charging any cancellation charges, at the station at which the journey has been terminated.
(3) Where the train Journey is dislocated en route due to bandhs, agitations or rail roko, fare for the untravelled portion only shall be refunded without the levy of cancellation charges.
6. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad while passing the impugned order has recorded a finding that the refund involved relates to a particular train referred in the order dated 30.4.1998. therefore, in these circumstances, there is no question of deviating from the decision taken by the Chief Commercial Manager vide order dated 30.4.1998. The respondents have been directed to act upon the order dated 30.4.1998 passed by the Chief Commercial Manager and on its basis any entitlement to refund has been directed to be made within a period of three months from the date of communication of the impugned order.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has tried to argue that the impugned order dated 9.3.2006 has been passed in ignorance of the Relevant Rules whereas a perusal of the order do not say so. On the contrary, the in terpretation arrived at by the Chief Commercial Manager of the Relevant Rules has been accepted.
8. After hearing the counsel for petitioner at length, we find that the competent authority passed an order dated 30.4.1998 in terpreting the Relevant Rule in the given circumstances. The Central Administrative Tribunal agreed with the decision and passed the impugned order. Learned Counsel has not been able to point out that the conclusion and findings arrived at by the Chief Commercial Manager is perverse and no prudent man will arrive at such a conclusion. The controversy involved is continuing since a very long time, several innings have been played, there appears to be no reason for interference as no error apparent on the face of record could be pointed in the impugned Judgment. It does not call for an interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We cannot proceed to re-examine factual controversy raised specially when the Relevant Rules is liable to be interpreted in two ways and one of them has been accepted by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and nothing has been brought to our notice to arrive at a conclusion that interpretation is absolutely perverse, unconstitutional, illegal or no prudent person could arrive at such a conclusion. We are not inclined to interfere in exercise of Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.