Heard Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the Railways, in all the three revision petitions which are reported to be delayed by 98 days, 102 days and 100 days respectively.

We have perused the delay condonation applications (IA/16181, 16184 and 16187/2024) and the cause shown appears to be sufficient.  Even the merits of the petitions, in our opinion, deserve condonation of delay as observed in the Apex Court decisions in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Satish Chand Shivhare and Brothers, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2151, Paragraph-22; Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through LRs and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Anr., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1278, Paragraph-29; and the latest decision in the case of Mool Chandra Vs. Union of India and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1878, Paragraph-20.

We accordingly allow the delay condonation applications, condone the delay and treat the revision petitions to have been filed within time.  

Since the issue is purely technical and seems to be trivial, we do not propose to issue notice on these revision petitions as, in our considered opinion, the error which is sought to be corrected through these revision petitions does not even require the calling for the records and the revision petitions deserve to be allowed at the outset for the reasons given hereinafter.

The complaints were filed alleging deficiencies that were allowed on 08.07.2013, 16.12.2016 and 13.11.2020 respectively by the DCDRC Haridwar and Dehradun (hereinafter referred to as the District Commissions).  The Railways through the opposite parties in the complaints filed appeals questioning the correctness of the orders of the District Commissions.  After contest, these appeals were filed in all the three matters that were allowed by the SCDRC Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) on 25.08.2022, 06.09.2022 and 19.09.2022 respectively, holding that the complaints were not maintainable and while allowing the appeals, the complaints were dismissed. 

The order then categorically recites that the statutory amounts deposited by the appellants/petitioners be returned to them. 

It appears that while the amount was being released, the FDRs for encashment were released in favour of the Chief Medical Superintendent, Northern Railway, Divisional Railway Hospital, Moradabad, who was only one of the opposite parties. 

It appears that the amount had to be released in favour of the designated competent authority in whose favour the Railways operate the accounts. Consequently, the appellants/petitioners moved miscellaneous application in all the three appeals praying that the release order be modified to the extent that the same shall be payable to the Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad instead of Chief Medical Superintendent.  The said designated authority was however not a party to the proceedings.

Nonetheless, the miscellaneous applications which were moved were taken up on 20.12.2022 and were dismissed on the ground that orders for release have already been passed while disposing of the main appeals and therefore there was no requirement of passing a fresh order for release.

Learned counsel submits that the release sought through the miscellaneous applications only prayed for the change in the designation of the authority entitled to receive back the statutory amount deposited on behalf of the Railways in the appeals and therefore the same were not applications for a fresh order of release.

We find force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners Mr. Verma and the impugned orders deserve correction in order to remedy the same.  The applications moved were for a modified direction in favour of the designated authority which was justified and does not seem to have been opposed. The statutory deposit has to be returned back to the coffers of the concerned Department of the Government and in the absence of any substantial legal impediment the applications should have been entertained and allowed.  The rejection of the miscellaneous applications has resulted in the filing of these revision petitions for a modification.  It is correct that the designated authority was not a party to the proceedings but at the same time where it is a Government body and an Authority of the Central Government where the applications had been moved by the appellants/petitioners themselves, we see no reason to doubt the purpose for which the applications were moved.  We accordingly set aside the orders dated 20.12.2022 and direct that the release of the statutory pre-deposit amount shall now be made in favour of Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad as requested by the petitioners within a period not later than one month from today.

The revision petitions are accordingly allowed with the above directions.