4-MCA-840-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 840 OF 2024 (REVIEW) IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2182 OF 2017 (D) (Rajesh s/o Ramesh Bawangade Vs. The Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. Mr. N.W. Almelkar, Counsel for the applicant. Ms. A.S. Athalye, Counsel for the non-applicants. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. SEPTEMBER 28, 2026 The order, which is sought to be reviewed, is a short order, and therefore, we would reproduce the same. It reads as under : “The father of the petitioner was working as a Licensed Porter. He died in the year 2009. Before that, he had submitted an application on 29.07.2005 for transfer of Railway Porter License in the name of his son who is the present petitioner. The settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the respondent – establishment on 28.01.2010. Accordingly, the agreement of transfer was entered on 23.08.2010, under which the petitioner working as Porter. The claim is that the petitioner was required to be absorbed as Gangman in terms of policy of the respondent – establishment. The cut of date prescribed was 26.02.2008, prior to which a person should have been worked as License Porter. Our attention is invited about the identity card of the petitioner which shows date of joining as November 2004 and receipt of payment dated 02.08.2010 to urge that the petitioner has been working as License Porter prior to 26.02.2008. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the documents placed on record, we find that the petitioner was 2026:BHC-NAG:12792-DB 4-MCA-840-2024 2 absorbed as License Porter as per agreement dated 23.08.2010. Infact, the application of the father of the petitioner for transfer of his Porter License was made on 29.07.2005 and the ultimate settlement was arrived at on 28.01.2010, in response to which the petitioner was absorbed as License Porter. In view of above facts, the petitioner was not working as License Porter prior to 26.02.2008. We are unable to accept the claim of the petitioner which has been rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petition is dismissed.” 2] As could be seen, the Court found that the petitioner was absorbed as Licensed Porter as per the agreement dated 23/8/2010. Though, the petitioner’s father filed the application for transfer of his Porter license in the name of his son, i.e., the petitioner, on 29/7/2005, the settlement between the parties, however, arrived at on 28/1/2010, and in response to the settlement, the petitioner was absorbed as Licensed Porter. In such set of facts, the Court held that the petitioner was not working as Licensed Porter prior to 26/2/2008, i.e., the cut off date, and therefore, the petitioner was not absorbed as Gangman in terms of the policy then existing. 3] The argument is that, similarly placed candidates, namely, Smt. Asha Deepak Raut and Smt. Maya Gajbhiye, were granted benefit of the policy, though they were not working as Porter at the relevant time. 4] When we inquired with the petitioner’s Counsel as to whether this fact was pointed out to the Court, he submits that since he was not the arguing Counsel, he may not be able to make statement. 4-MCA-840-2024 3 5] That being so, the applicant cannot argue that there occurred an apparent error in the judgment. That apart, the Counsel for the non-applicants submits that the aforesaid two candidates were not similarly placed. She submits that though they were not working as Porter, the agreement of settlement between the parties, to transfer Porter License, was entered into in the year 2006, and accordingly, this Court granted notional date of working to those two candidates. 6] Thus, the aforesaid two candidates entered into the agreement of settlement prior to cut off date, whereas the petitioner did so post cut off date. 7] That being so, the argument that similarly placed candidates were given favourable treatment is incorrect. In any case, there is nothing on record to show that this fact was brought to the notice of the Court, and therefore, the case for review is not made out. 8] The application is, accordingly, rejected. (NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, J.) (ANIL L. PANSARE, J.) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/09/2026 18:39:13