Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mant Lal vs General Manager, N E Rly on 9 May, 2023
Reserved on 15.04.2023
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad
This the 9th day of May, 2023
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Original Application No. 31 of 2019
Along With
Original Application No. 13 of 2019
Original Application No. 52 of 2019
Original Application No. 69 of 2019
Original Application No. 329 of 2019
Original Application No. 726 of 2019
Original Application No.1143 of 2019
Original Application No.330 of 2019
Original Application No. 820 of 2010
Original Application No.1424 of 2018
Original Application No.54 of 2019
Original Application No.819 of 2010
Original Application No.1267 of 2012
Original Application No.232 of 2008
Original Application No.1831 of 2012
Original Application No.609 of 2019
Original Application No.942 of 2021
Original Application No.960 of 2021
Original Application No.368 of 2019
The Memo of Parties along with brief facts in respect of each of
the above listed cases has been composed below:
Parties in OA No. 31 of 2019:
1. Jagdish, Aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Hari Ram, R/o Village -
Vardahad, Post - Baisaar Farenda, District - Maharajganj.
2. Ram Vilas, S/o Shri Mukti Nath, R/o Village - Bankati, Post -
Lokmanya Vidhyapeeth Nagar, District - Maharajganj.
2
3. Parasu Ram, S/o Shri Satya Dev, R/o Village - Desai Bujurg
Kurmi, Post - Chandwar, District- Maharajganj.
4. Harihar, S/o Shri Sita Ram R/o Village - Baisar, Post Dhani Bazar
District - Maharajganj.
5. Vanshu, S/o Shri Sundar R/o Village - Bankati, Post - Lok Vidhya
Peeth Nagar, District - Maharajganj.
6. Ram Das, S/o Shri Jhinghur, R/o Village - Mathura Nagar, Tola -
Madhavpur, Post - Anand Nagar, District - Maharajganj.
7. Buddhi Ram, S/o Shri Ram Aasare, R/o Village - Chitahi Bujurg,
Post - Dandwar Khurd, District - Maharajganj..
8. Munni Lal, S/o Shri Bhagauti Yadav, R/o Village - Duvliya, Post
- Brij Man Ganj, District - Maharajganj.
........... Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
------- Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai and Shri M K Sharma.
Brief facts in OA No. 31 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 31 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later are aggrieved from the fact that although some
3
of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same pursuant to the screening the result of which was declared on
25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage despite being similarly
situated to those employees. By way of the instant application,
applicants have alleged that contrary to the statutory rules and ruling
of the Apex Court, respondents have appointed those persons who are
junior to the applicants thereby denying reengagement of the
applicants. Applicants seek a direction to the respondents to allow
them age relaxation thereby giving them appointment in the
department along with granting seniority and all consequential
benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed to be declared
eligible for appointment as has been done by them with reference to
other similarly situated persons.
Along With
Parties in OA No. 13 of 2019:
1. Balkeshwar Sharma, Aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Keshav Prasad,
R/o Village - Haripur, Post - Dumariya Sahtawar, District -
Ballia.
2. Jai Prakash Dubey, S/o Shri Thakur Prasad Dubey, R/o Village -
Shahpur, Post - Geeta Vatika, District - Gorakhpur.
3. Gopi Chand Sharma, S/o Shri Moti Lal Sharma, R/o House No.
920, Krishna Nagar, Railway Colony, District - Gorakhpur.
4. Amar Nath, S/o Shri Pataru, R/o Village - Mahokha Geer, Post -
Padari Bazar, District - Deoria.
5. Deena Nath, S/o Shri Ram Kishun, R/o Village - Shahpur, Post -
Geeta Vatika, District - Gorakhpur.
6. Hari Ram, S/o Shri Munnar, R/o Village and Post - Maniram,
District - Gorakhpur.
4
7. Subhash Chandra, S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan, R/o Village - Hari
Kishan. Post- Bhatani, District - Deoria.
8. Raja Ram Yadav, S/o Shri Dahari Yadav, R/o Village - Jigina
Dixit, Post - Bhatani, District - Deoria.
9. Innar Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Nandan Yadav, R/o Village - Jigina
Dixit, Post - Bhatani, District - Deoria.
10. Abhay Nath Singh, S/o Shri Ramdeo Singh, R/o Village - Sikdaur,
Post - Maniram, District - Gorakhpur.
11. Abhimanyu, S/o Shri Ram Adhar, R/o Village - Ranighat, Post -
Ghati, District - Deoria.
12. Harihar, S/o Shri Moti Lal, R/o Village - Simtaru, Post -
Maniram, District - Gorakhpur.
13. Kailash, S/o Shri Magan, R/o Village - Siktaur, Post - Maniram,
District - Gorakhpur.
14. Vinod Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Ram Bharose Singh, R/o Village -
Bhediyagarh, Post - Geeta Vatika, District - Gorakhpur.
........... Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava.
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
------- Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai and Shri M K Sharma.
5
Brief facts in OA No. 13 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 13 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 52 of 2019:
1. Devendar Rai, aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Lal Bihari Rai, R/o
Village - Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
2. Singhasan Mahto, S/o Shri Raj Nath Mahto, R/o Village -
Murautpur, Post - Aunjha, District - Chappara (Bihar).
3. Raj Narayan Yadav, S/o Shri Dulla Yadav, R/o Village -
Bankatwa, Post - Kota Samhauta, District - Saran Chappara
(Bihar)
4. Sukhlal Rai, S/o Shri Suchit Rai, R/o Village - Narpar Gopi, Post
- Nandpur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
6
5. Lal Bihari Rai, S/o Shri Vasudev Rai, R/o Village and Post -
Affaur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
6. Krishna Bhagat, S/o Shri Gulam Bhagat, R/o Village - Khaira
Hare Ram Tola, Post - Khaira, District - Chappara (Bihar)
7. Chura Man Rai, S/o Shri Asarfi Rai, R/o Village - Kuriya, Post -
Khaira, District - Chappara (Bihar)
8. Dharichar Mahto, S/o Shri Musafir Mahto, R/o Village -
Madanpur, Post - Naraun, District - Saran Chappara (Bihar)
9. Bhagwan Rai, S/o Shri Teju Rai, R/o Village - Chota Jhauwa, Post
- Jhawna Naraun, District - Chappara (Bihar)
10. Raj Kumar Mahto, S/o Shri Mishri Mahto, R/o Village -
Khechriya Harirai ka Tola, Post - Ranaura, District - Saran (Bihar)
11. Lal Mohan Giri, S/o Shri Raghunath Giri, R/o Village - Khaira
Hare Ram, Post - Khaira, District - Saran (Bihar)
12. Mustafa Miya, S/o Shri Mukhtar Miya, R/o Village - Kopa, Post -
Kopa Bazar, District - Chappara (Bihar)
13. Kashi Nath Rai, S/o Shri Basudev Rai, R/o Village - Khaira Hare
Ram, Post - Khaira, District - Saran (Bihar)
14. Murli Rai, S/o Shri Vishwanath Rai, R/o Village - Setha, Post -
Jhauwa, District - Chappara (Bihar)
15. Suresh Rai, S/o Shri Ram Lakhan Rai, R/o Village - Setha, Post -
Renuwa, District - Saran (Bihar)
16. Awadesh Rai, S/o Shri Vishwanath Rai, R/o Village - Setha, Post
- Saidpur Mauni, District - Saran Chappara (Bihar)
17. Rajendra Rai, S/o Shri Panchi Rai, R/o Village - Setha, Post -
Jhauwa, District - Chappara (Bihar)
18. Surender Prasad, S/o Shri Sita Ram, R/o Village - Jalalpur, Post -
Rasulpur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
7
19. Ram Nath Rai, S/o Shri Binda Rai, R/o Village - Babukhani, Post
- Pahlowa Batuka, District - Chappara (Bihar)
20. Kamal Thakur, S/o Shri Asharfi Thakur, R/o Village - Jalalpur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
21. Chhote Lal Ram, S/o Shri Shiv Nath Ram, R/o Village -
Turakvaliya, Post - Naini, District - Chhapra (Bihar).
22. Shri Kant Sharma, S/o Shri Shiv Nath Sharma, R/o Village and
Post - Basrikapur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
23. Laxman Rai, S/o Shri Bulawan Rai, R/o Village - Satta, Post -
Rasulpur, District - Chappara (Bihar)
24. Ram Suresh, S/o Shri Prabhu Nath, R/o Village - Keshav Patti,
Post - Chauri Chaura, District - Gorakhpur
------Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
------ Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
Brief facts in OA No. 52 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 52 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
8
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 69 of 2019:
Harish Chand, Aged about 57 years, S/o Mewa Lal, R/o Mohalla -
Nausarh, District - Gorakhpur.
-----Applicant
By Advocate: Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
----- Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
9
Brief facts in OA No. 69 of 2019:
The applicant in OA No. 69 of 2019 is an ex-casual labour initially
engaged by the respondents during 1981 and was retrenched later. He
aggrieved from the fact that although some of those retrenched casual
labours have been reengaged by the respondents pursuant to the orders
passed by different Courts including the Apex Court, he has been
denied the same. His case was rejected pursuant to the screening the
result of which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of
overage despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way
of the instant application, the applicant has alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to him thereby denying his
reengagement. He seeks a direction to the respondents to allow him
age relaxation thereby giving him appointment in the department
along with granting seniority and all consequential benefits w.e.f.
01.04.1999 i.e., the date he is deemed to be declared eligible for
appointment as has been done by them with reference to other
similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 329 of 2019:
1. Ram Dhani, Aged about 58 years, S/o Shri Bali Ram, R/o Village
- Lal Karauna, Post - Gulriha Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
2. Jhagaru Prasad, S/o Shri Magan, R/o Village - Mirganj, Post -
Jainpur, District - Gorakhpur.
3. Daya Nand Maurya, S/o Shri Jai Karan Maurya, R/o Village -
Saraiya Bazar, Post - Gulhariya Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
4. Deena Nath Mali, S/o Shri Satya Narain Mali, R/o Village and
Post - Gulhariya Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
10
5. Bechan Gaur, S/o Shri Khunnu Gaur, R/o Village - Jangal
Kaudiya Tola Baharpurwa, Post - Jangal Kaudiya Pipiganj,
District - Gorakhpur.
6. Ram Charan, S/o Shri Kodhi, R/o Village and Post - Bagha Gada,
District - Gorakhpur.
7. Sattar, S/o Shri Shri Akbar, R/o Village - Jangal Hakim No. 2
Mohanapur, Post - Padari Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
8. Gama Yadav, S/o Shri Birbal Yadav, R/o Village and Post - Jangal
Kaudiya Rampur, District - Gorakhpur.
9. Barkhu, S/o Shri Baliraj, R/o Village - Chotaka Pathara, Post -
Miya Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
10. Rajendra Prasad Gupta, S/o Late Muneshwar, R/o Village and Post
- Gulriha Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
11. Chhote Lal, S/o Shri Ram Sumag, R/o Village - Kahar Purwa, Post
- Jangal Kaudiya Pipiganj, District - Gorakhpur.
12. Ram Daras Maurya, Late Ram Pyare Maurya, R/o Village -
Kuduwa, Post - Kuduwa Mehdawal, District - Sant Kabir Nagar.
13. Ram Vansh, S/o Shri Dwarika, R/o Village - Harsewakpur No. 9,
Post - Arogya Mandir, District - Gorakhpur.
14. Dineshwar Prasad Rai, S/o Late Ramanand Rai, R/o Village -
Barsani, Post - Pahleja Batuka, District - Chhapara.
15. Girdhari, S/o Shri Buddhu, R/o Village - Ubhawan, Post -
Deogaon, District - Deoria.
16. Shakti Nath Tiwari, S/o Shri Upendra Nath Tiwari, R/o Village
and Post - Pipraich, District - Gorakhpur.
17. Ram Surat, S/o Shri Hari Prasad, R/o Village and Post -
Jagdishpur, District - Gorakhpur.
11
18. Subhash, S/o Shri Teerath, R/o Village - Uttarashot, Post -
Bhabhariya, District - Gorakhpur.
19. Rajendra, S/o Shri Sita Ram, R/o Village - Pan Koda, Post - Gauri
Bazar, District - Deoria.
20. Laxmi, S/o Shri Poojan, R/o Village - Pan Koda, Post - Gauri
Bazar, District - Deoria.
21. Ramjeet, S/o Shri Panchu, R/o Village - Sirjam, Post - Deoria,
District - Deoria.
22. Adalat Prasad, S/o Shri Jhinak, R/o Village - Salik Ram, Post -
Padari Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
-----Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
Brief facts in OA No. 329 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 329 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
12
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 726 of 2019:
1. Nirmal, Aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Banshraj, R/o Village -
Mohanapur Bada Tola, Post - Padari Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
2. Suresh Kumar Gupta, S/o Shri Hariprasad, R/o Mohalla - Jaddepur
South, Post - Gorakhnath, District - Gorakhpur.
3. Virendra Nath Pandey, S/o Shri Rampati Pandey, R/o L / 53A,
Baumiya Railway Colony, District - Gorakhpur.
4. Brij Bihari Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Padarath Yadav, R/o Mohalla
Shakti Nagar Colony, Post - Barsaratpur, District - Gorakhpur.
5. Parasuram, S/o Shri Satyadev, R/o Village - Chitahi Bujurg
Kurmi, Post - Chandwar, District - Maharajganj.
6. Prem Narayan Shukla, S/o Shri Kodai Shukla, R/o Village -
Gaunar Us Rahan, Post - Chauri Chaura, District - Gorakhpur.
7. Ramdev Mahto, S/o Shri Tulsi Mahto, R/o Village - Jagdishpur,
Post - Doriganj, District - Saran (Bihar).
13
8. Abdul Sahid, S/o Shri Abdul Majid, R/o Village - Ahamad Nagar
Chak Sahu Sen, Post - Gorakhnath, District - Gorakhpur.
9. Mohd. Wasi Ullah, S/o Shri Mohd. Shafi Ullah, R/o Village -
Dhosipurwa, Post - Geeta Watika, Shahpur, District - Gorakhpur.
10. Ram Ji Pandit, S/o Shri Durga Pandit, R/o Village - Shyam Chak,
Post - Bhagwan Prasad, District - Chhapra (Bihar).
............. Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha
Brief facts in OA No. 726 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 726 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
14
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 1143 of 2019:
1. Shanker, Aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Bhikha, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasalpura, District - Chappara (Bihar).
2. Shatrughan Sharma, S/o Shri Yadunath Sharma, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasalpura, District - Chappara (Bihar).
3. Ram Jeet, S/o Shri Ramkewal, R/o Village - Siktaur, Post - Mani
Ram, District - Gorakhpur.
4. Vakil Mahto, S/o Shri Bhagel Chandra Mahto, R/o Village - Felsa
Fulwariya, Post - Felsa, District - Chhapara (Bihar).
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
15
Brief facts in OA No. 1143 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 1143 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 330 of 2019:
1. Tribhuwan, Aged about 58 years, S/o Basudeo, R/o Village -
Badhani Tola Kudariha, District - Gorakhpur.
2. Mithai Prasad, S/o Babu Ram, R/o Village - Lakshmipur, Post -
Mahuwa Bujurg Bodarwar, District - Kushinagar.
3. Ram Murat, S/o Ram Lal, R/o Village - Badhani (Kudarihan),
Post- Sarhari, District - Gorakhpur.
4. Ram Kesh, S/o Ram Lakhan, R/o Village - Kudariha, Post-
Sarhari, District - Gorakhpur.
16
5. Ramdhani, S/o Ganga, R/o Village - Badhani, Post- Marchahi,
District - Gorakhpur.
6. Ram Chander, S/o Bhola, R/o Village and Post- Jangal Kaudiya,
District - Gorakhpur.
7. Sugreev Chand, S/o Vindeshwari, R/o Village - Keshavpatti, Post
- Chauri Chaura, District - Gorakhpur.
8. Ram Sajan, S/o Mahadev, R/o Village - Siyarampur, Post -
Rampur, District - Gorakhpur.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
Brief facts in OA No. 330 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 330 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
17
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 820 of 2010:
1. Brij Bihari Yadav S/o Ram Padarath Yadav R/o Village Shakti
Nagar Colony, in front of Shiv Mandir, Post - Basaratpur, District
Gorakhpur.
2. Lallan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Brij Nandan Sharma R/o House
No. D/64H, Bhediyagarh Old Asuran Chungi, Post - Basaratpur,
District Gorakhpur.
3. Noorul Hasan S/o Sri Munir Ahmad, R/o Village Ahmad Nagar
Chaksa Husain, Post - Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
4. Virendra Nath Pandey S/o Sri Rampati Pandey R/o House No.
L/53A Bauliya Railway Colony, District Gorakhpur.
5. Bunela Yadav S/o Kharvindan Yadav R/o Village and Post -
Sarhari, District Gorakhpur.
6. Suryaman Yadav S/o Late Rajbali R/o Village and Post - Sarhari,
Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur.
7. Anoop Kumar Nath S/o Sri Sudhir Kumar Nath R/o Quarter No.
MELT / 52 F Bauliya Railway Colony, District Gorakhpur.
18
8. Abdul Shaheed S/o Late Abdul Majeed R/o Village Ahmad Nagar
Chaksa Husain, Post - Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
9. Amanutullah S/o Sri Dahu R/o Village Husainabad, Post -
Gorakhnath, District Gorakhpur.
10. Somai Prasad S/o Ram Lal R/o Village Kusumi, Post - Tenwa
Sahjanawan, District Gorakhpur.
11. Ramesh Chandra Mishra S/o Sri Batukdev Mishra R/o Village
Banuwadeeh, Post - Hata (Banuwadeeh), District Deoria.
12. Jagdish S/o Sri Gopi R/o Village Manbela, Post - Jhhunjiya,
District Gorakhpur.
13. Om Prakash Srivastava S/o Sri Krishna Mohan Sahai R/o Village
Bhamaura, Post - Narkathan Bazar Paniyara, District Gorakhpur.
14. Nirmal S/o Sri Banshraj R/o Village Mohnapur Bada Tola, Post -
Padri Bazar, District Gorakhpur.
15. Sakir Ali S/o Sri Gabbu R/o Village Mohnapur, Post - Padri
Bazar, District Gorakhpur.
16. Visai Prasad S/o Ram Naresh R/o Village Koliya, Post - Chhapiya
(Sajhanawan), District Gorakhpur.
17. Dhooplal S/o Dudhai R/o Village Eklabazar, Post - Baghagada,
District Gorakhpur.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
19
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra
Brief facts in OA No. 820 of 2010:
The applicants in OA No. 820 of 2010 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime in 1980-81 and were retrenched
later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although some of those
retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the respondents
pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts including the Apex
Court, the applicants herein have been denied the same. Their case
was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of which was
declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage despite being
similarly situated to those employees. By way of the instant
application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the statutory rules
and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have appointed those
persons who are junior to the applicants thereby denying
reengagement of the applicants. Applicants have prayed for quashing
of the impugned order dated 5-21.4.2010 whereby they have been
declared ineligible in the screening held for absorption in the
Department. They also seek quashing of impugned notification dated
23.03.2010 whereby respondents stated that only those cases of the
applicants will considered who fulfill the eligibility condition
including the prescribed age limit. They also seek quashing of fresh
recruitment process issued vide notification dated 06.12.2007.
Applicants seek a direction to the respondents to appoint them in
Group - D post against the existing vacancies without putting any
embargo in the upper age limit.
And
Parties in OA No. 1424 of 2018:
20
1. Bijendra Prasad Singh, aged about 57 years, S/o Shri Shiv Prassan
Singh, R/o Village - Jalalpura, Post - Rasalpura, District -
Chapara (Bihar).
2. Ram Lal Shah, S/o Late Mishri Shah, R/o Village & Post -
Chirrand, District - Chapara (Bihar)
3. Shyam Lal Shah, S/o Late Mishri Shah, R/o Village & Post -
Chirrand, District - Saran (Bihar)
4. Chandrama, S/o Shri Raghunath, R/o Village - Jalalpur, Post -
Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
5. Vakil Rai, S/o Shri Chatthi Rai, R/o Village - Santo, Post -
Jhauwa Meghanrao, District - Chapara (Bihar)
6. Suresh Rai, S/o Shri Muni Rai, R/o Village - Panchpariya, Post -
Deoria, District - Chapara (Bihar)
7. Prayag Mahto, S/o Shri Mahadev Mahto, R/o Village - Bada
Barahmapur, Post - Bhagwan Bazar, District - Chapara (Bihar)
8. Buddhan Rai, S/o Jeera Rai, R/o Village - Santha, Post - Jhauwa,
District - Chapara (Bihar)
9. Kishun Dev, S/o Shri Jugul, R/o Village - Kazipur, Post -
Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
10. Brijnandan Prasad, S/o Late Hajari Rai, R/o Village - Kazipur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
11. Harendar Prasad, S/o Shri Ram Rekha Prasad, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpura, District - Chapara (Bihar)
12. Bhagwan Shah, S/o Shri Janki Shah, R/o Village - Jalalpur, Post -
Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
13. Jai Ram Prasad, S/o Shri Brahma Dev Rai, R/o Village - Kazipur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
21
14. Brij Mohan Rai, S/o Shri Ram Ashish Rai, R/o Village - Kazipur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
15. Jai Prakash Yadav, S/o Shri Mahadev Yadav, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpura, District - Saran (Bihar)
16. Shiv Ghulam Prasad, S/o Shri Ramprit Prasad, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpura, District - Saran (Bihar)
17. Nageshwar Rai, S/o Shri Ramdayal Rai, R/o Village - Jalalpur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
18. Jagannath Manjhi, S/o Shri Shivbalak Manjhi, R/o Village and
Post - Chirrandh, District - Chapara (Bihar)
19. Nirmal Shah, S/o Shri Bharat Shah, R/o Village - Jalalpur, Post -
Gultenganj, District - Chapara (Bihar)
20. Yogendra Rai, S/o Late Ram Bilas Rai, R/o Village - Aami
Mathurapur, Post - Aami, District - Chapara (Bihar)
21. Shivji Mahto, S/o Shri Shahdev Mahto, R/o Village - Dumri
Pandey Tola, Post - Dumari Baluwa, District - Chapara (Bihar)
22. Ram Nigah Shah, S/o Shri Jagar Nath Shah, R/o Village - Jalalpur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Saran (Bihar)
23. Ram Kishore Thakur, S/o Shri Vansh Ropan Thakur, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
24. Baleshwar Mahto, S/o Kokhan Mahto, R/o Village - Jalalpur, Post
- Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
25. Ram Jeet Rai, S/o Shri Shiv Poojan Rai, R/o Village - Navadeeh,
Post - Goltenganj, District - Chapara (Bihar)
26. Chandeshwar, S/o Shri Durga, R/o Village - Jalalpur, Post -
Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
27. Raj Nath Shah, S/o Shri Shiv Nath Shah, R/o Village - Jalalpur,
Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
22
28. Sakaldeep Kumar Vidhyarthi, S/o Shri Jagdhari Prasad, R/o
Village - Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpur, District - Chapara (Bihar)
29. Shri Prabhu Pandit, S/o Shri Sahatu Pandit, R/o Village - Jalalpur,
Post - Rasulpura, District - Saran (Bihar)
30. Hari Nath Sharma, S/o Late Jamuna Sharma, R/o Village -
Jalalpur, Post - Rasulpura, District - Saran (Bihar)
31. Madan Lal, S/o Bhola, R/o Village and Post - Pipraich, District -
Gorakhpur
32. Bhola, S/o Shri Dwarika, R/o Village - Ashrafpur, Post -
Mankapur, District - Gonda
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
Brief facts in OA No. 1424 of 2018:
The applicants in OA No. 1424 of 2018 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
23
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared subsequently merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 54 of 2019:
1. Hoob Lal, Aged about 56 years, S/o Shri Bhagelu, R/o Village -
Bhaisaha Tola Dhodhara, Post - Ramnagar Bhaisaha, District -
Gorakhpur.
2. Abdul Saleem, S/o Shri Kasim Ali, R/o Village - Badhan, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
3. Ram Lalit, S/o Shri Vindhayachal, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha Sardar Nagar, District - Gorakhpur.
4. Ramagya, S/o Shri Devun Ram, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
5. Lal Bachan, S/o Shri Vindhyachal, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha Sardar Nagar, District - Gorakhpur.
6. Ram Lakshan, S/o Shri Bechai, R/o Village - Behrampur
Kurmaur, Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
7. Palakdhari, S/o Shri Ram Pyare, R/o Village - Ramnagar Karjaha,
Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
24
8. Kali Charan, S/o Shri Triveni, R/o Village - Chakai, Post - Sadar
Khurd, District - Gorakhpur.
9. Ram Sati, S/o Shri Raghunath, R/o Village - Gola Bhaisaha, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
10. Ram Pravesh, S/o Shri Shankar, R/o Village - Maliya Tola
Bhagwanpur, Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
11. Dulare, S/o Shri Ram Gati, R/o Village - Nauka Tola, Post -
Kusumahi Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
12. Harhanhi, S/o Shri Ram Briksha, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
13. Rekhai, S/o Shri Manni, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post - Bhaisaha,
District - Gorakhpur.
14. Puranmasi, S/o Shri Jangalee, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
15. Mahabir, S/o Shri Sukkhu, R/o Village - Brahmpur Tampur
Kurmaur, Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
16. Pardesi, S/o Shri Ram Awadh, R/o Village - Kurmaur Sardar
Nagar, Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
17. Ram Bhajan, S/o Shri Brijlal, R/o Village - Satrughanpur
Fulwariya, Post - Sardar Nagar, District - Gorakhpur.
18. Gorakh, S/o Shri Rameshwar, R/o Village - Brahma Rampur
Kurmaur, Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
19. Chirkut, S/o Shri Dhanai, R/o Village - Dhodhara, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
20. Asgar, S/o Shri Noor Mohammad, R/o Village - Rani Deha, Post -
Kudaghat, District - Gorakhpur.
21. Om Prakash, S/o Shri Ganpat, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
25
22. Rangilal, S/o Shri Bhuneshwar, R/o Village - Kurmaur, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
23. Ram Pratap Yadav, S/o Shri Ram Daras Yadav, R/o Village -
Dhodhara, Post - Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
24. Ram Ashray, S/o Shri Bechai, R/o Village - Kurmaul, Post -
Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
25. Suresh, S/o Shri Bhagwati, R/o Village - Ramnagar Karjaha, Post
- Bhaisaha, District - Gorakhpur.
26. Shanker, S/o Shri Pardesi, R/o Village - Tinkoniya No. 2
Lacchipur, Post - Lacchipur, District - Gorakhpur.
27. Ramagya, S/o Shri Buddhu, R/o Village - Jungle Hapim No. 2,
Post - Padari Bazar, District - Gorakhpur.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
Brief facts in OA No. 54 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 54 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime during 1978-81 and 1985 and
were retrenched later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
26
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts
including the Apex Court, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. Their case was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of
which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage
despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way of the
instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 819 of 2010:
1. Vishwaleshwar Prasad Tiwari S/o Sri Bhagwati Prasad Tiwari R/o
Village Bander Gulwa, Post Bhitori Mankapur, District Gonda.
2. Rajesh Kumar S/o Suraj Prasad Srivastava R/o Village
Harsinghawa Chauhan, Post Mankapur, District Gonda.
3. Ram Avtar S/o Lakhpat R/o Village Karesir, Post Mallipur,
Mankapur, District Gonda.
4. Guru Prasad S/o Sri Pal R/o Village and Post - Adhiyari, District
Gonda.
5. Haresh Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Shyam Raj R/o Village
Kisundaspur, Post - Mankapur, District Gonda.
6. Virendra Kumar S/o Jagdamba Prasad R/o Village Kisandaspur,
Post Mankapur, District Gonda.
27
7. Budhai S/o Bhagwati Prasad R/o Village Veerpur, Post Mankapur,
District Gonda.
8. Ram Bharat Yadav S/o Ram Nath Yadav R/o Village Sirgaura,
Post Kannupur, District Gonda.
9. Shyamlal S/o Sri Mohan Lal R/o Village Kangawan, Post Aonla,
District Bareilly.
10. Laxmi Narain S/o Gulab Singh R/o Village and Post Sultanpur
Aryanagar, District Udham Singh Nagar.
11. Asharfi Lal S/o Jagan Singh R/o Village Tigrathanpur, Post Mau
Chandpur, District Bareilly.
12. Babu Ram S/o Hem Raj R/o Village Kangawan, Post Aonla,
District Bareilly.
13. Ram Prakash S/o Dori Lal R/o Krishna Nagar New Awas Vikas
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.
14. Sri Prama S/o Bhola R/o Village Usra Tola, Post Savreji, District
Deoria.
15. Rama Shanker S/o Sahdev R/o Village Badka Gaon, Post Bhatpur,
District Deoria.
16. Hari Shanker S/o Bhullan R/o Village Badka Gaon Dubey, Post
Bhatpur, District Deoria.
17. Balram Singh Yadav S/o Yadunandan Yadav R/o Village Dhanaur
Tola Usra, Post Sabreji, District Deoria.
18. Dinesh Kumar Tiwari S/o Shri Kant R/o Village and Post Sabreji,
District Deoria.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Ashish Srivastava
Versus
28
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N) (II), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Ajay Kumar Rai
Brief facts in OA No. 819 of 2010:
The applicants in OA No. 819 of 2010 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime in 1980-81 and were retrenched
later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although some of those
retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the respondents
pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts including the Apex
Court, the applicants herein have been denied the same. Their case
was rejected pursuant to the screening the result of which was
declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of overage despite being
similarly situated to those employees. By way of the instant
application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the statutory rules
and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have appointed those
persons who are junior to the applicants thereby denying
reengagement of the applicants. Applicants have prayed for quashing
of the impugned order dated 5-21.4.2010 whereby they have been
declared ineligible in the screening held for absorption in the
Department. They also seek quashing of impugned notification dated
23.03.2010 whereby respondents stated that only those cases of the
applicants will considered who fulfill the eligibility condition
including the prescribed age limit. They also seek quashing of fresh
recruitment process issued vide notification dated 06.12.2007.
Applicants seek a direction to the respondents to appoint them in
Group - D post against the existing vacancies without putting any
embargo in the upper age limit.
29
And
Parties in OA No. 1267 of 2012:
1. Banwari S/o Shri Munsi R/o Village and Post Byara, P.S.
Achhanera, District - Agra.
2. Prem Singh, S/o late Nakul Singh, R/o Village - Janutha, P.O-
Kathwari, P.S. Achhanera, District - Agra.
3. Bhai Singh, S/o Late Gopi R/o Village - Nagla P.O. - Arua Khas,
P.S. Achhanera, District - Agra.
4. Pritam, S/o Late Bhaw Singh R/o Village and post - Kachaura,
P.S. Achhanera, District Agra.
5. Khem Singh, S/o Late Shankar, R/o Village Dhanauli, P S
Achhanera, District Agra.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri A D Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager North Central Railway,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Agra
Division Agra.
3. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Agra.
4. Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Jaipur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri S C Mishra
Brief facts in OA No. 1267 of 2012:
The applicants in OA No. 1267 of 2012 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime in 1980-81 and were retrenched
30
later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although some of those
retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the respondents
pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts including those by
coordinate benches of CAT, the applicants herein have been denied
the same. By way of the instant application, applicants have alleged
that contrary to the statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court,
respondents have appointed those persons who are junior to the
applicants thereby denying reengagement of the applicants.
Applicants are seeking quashing of the impugned speaking order
(annexed as Annexure No. A-1) to this O.A. vide which their claim
for appointment was rejected. Applicants also seek a direction to the
respondents to take them back in job and to pay the arrears of the
salary for the period they were kept employed illegally and also to
regularize their services w.e.f. the dates of regularization of the
services of junior persons as mentioned in the O.A.
And
Parties in OA No. 232 of 2008:
1. Dharam Raj Singh son of late Ram Adhar, Resident of village
Piprahiya (Dumari Khurd),P.O. Chauri Chora, District Gorakhpur.
2. GorakhNath son of late Sita Ram, Resident of village Vilari,
Mathiya, P.O. Sardarnagar, District Gorakhpur.
3. Dilip Kumar son of late Jai Karan, Resident of village Vilari
Mathiya P.O. Sardar Nagar District Gorakhpur.
4. Ram Hujoor son of late Jamuna, Resident of village Vilaritola,
Mathiya, P.O. Sardarnagar district Gorakhpur.
5. Radhey Shyam son of late sri Rama r/o village Bhagwanpur
P.O. Chauri Chora, Distt. Gorakhpur.
31
6. Singhasan son of late Bhorossa, r/o village Jodhpur, Sukhi, P.O.
Sardar Nagar, District Gorakhpur.
7. Ram Ashrey son of late Shyam Sunder, Resident of Village
Bansahiya P.O. Chori Chora, distt. Gorakhpur.
8. Lalji son of sri Sukhdev, resident of village Jodhpur sukahi P.O.
Sardarnagar District Gorakhpur.
9. Jangli son of sri Sukhraj, Resident of village Awadhpur
(Godhwa Tola) P.O. Sardar Nagar District Gorakhpur.
10. Ramashrey son of late Kalpu, Resident of village Avadhpur
(Godhwa tola) P.O. Sardar nagar Distirct Gorakhpur.
11. Thaggai son of late Dukhoo Resident of village Avadhpur
(Darogaji Ki Chhawani) P.O. Sardarnagar, District Gorakhpur.
12. Ram Darash yadav son of late Bali Karan yadav, Resident of
Village Moti Ram Adda P.O. Jhagaha (Bhaisaha) Gorakhpur.
13. Kanhiya son of Algaroli, Resident of village Sheopur, P.O.
Kushumi Bazar, Gorakhpur.
14. Avdhu son of late Chunmun, Resident of village Semrahiya,
P.O. Kushumi Bazar, District Gorakhpur.
15. Chandrika son of Ganga, Resident of village Sheopur P.O.
Kushumi Bazar, Distt. Gorakhpur.
16. Ram Ashrey son of Triveni, Resident of village Karmaul. P.O.
Bhaisaha, District Gorakhpur.
........... APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri S.K. Mishra
32
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway
Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Varanasi.
3. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction) N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur.
4. Deputy Chief personnel Officer, Recruitment sail, N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri M.P. Mishra
Brief facts in OA No. 232 of 2008:
The applicants in OA No. 232 of 2008 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime in 1980-81 and were retrenched
later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although some of those
retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the respondents
pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts, the applicants herein
have been denied the same. By way of the instant application,
applicants have alleged that contrary to the statutory rules and ruling
of the Apex Court, respondents have appointed those persons who are
junior to the applicants thereby denying reengagement of the
applicants. Applicants are seeking quashing of the impugned
notification dated 06.12.2007 vide which fresh recruitments were
advertised. They also seek quashing of impugned orders dated
05.04.2010, 16.04.2010 and 19.04.2010 thereby directing the
respondents to grant them age relaxation as has been decided in OA
No. 828 of 2001 and further regularize their services from the date
their juniors have been appointed.
And
Parties in OA No. 1831 of 2012:
33
1. Yogendra a/a 37 years son of Sri Om Prakash, Resident of House
No. 63-B/647 A/12-A, New Janta Colony, Post Pratappura, District
Agra.
2. Ram Mohan a/a 37 years, Son of Sri Nem Chandra, Resident of
Tulsinagar, Gauwar Chawki, Tajganj, Agra.
3. Raju a/a 34 years Son of Sri Kalicharan, Resident of Village
Karbana, Post Dhandhupura, Tajganj, Agra.
4. Ramniwas a/a 31 years, Son of Sri Kalyan Singh, Resident of
Village Karbana, Post Dhandhupura, Tajganj, Agra.
5. Rakesh a/a 31 years, Son of Sri Kalicharan, Resident of Village
Karbana, Post Dhandhupura, Tajganj, Agra.
........... APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Satish Dwivedi
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Human
Resources and Development, Department of Culture, Government
of India, New Delhi.
2. The Director General, Archaeological Survey of India, Janpath
New Delhi 11.
3. The Director, (Horticulture), Archaeological Survey of India,
Eastern Gate, Tajmahal, Agra.
4. The Chief Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of India, Eastern
Gate, Tajmahal, Agra.
5. The Dy. Superintending Horticulturist, Archaeological Survey of
India, Horticulture Division - I, Tajmahal, Agra.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri K K Ojha
Brief facts in OA No. 1831 of 2012:
34
The applicants in OA No. 1831 of 2012 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime in 1995-97 and 2000 and
continued to work against permanent post and in substantive vacancy
of Group D till 2011. They are aggrieved from the fact that although
some of those retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the
respondents pursuant, the applicants herein have been denied the
same. By way of the instant application, applicants have alleged that
contrary to the statutory rules, respondents have appointed those
persons who are junior to the applicants thereby denying
reengagement of the applicants. Seeking redressal of their grievances,
applicants had also preferred representations dated 19.12.2011 and
05.01.2012 upon which no action was taken. Applicants are seeking a
direction to the respondents to decide their pending representation and
to reengage them in service in preference to fresh candidates and
junior persons and thereafter pass appropriate order for regularization
of their services or for their regular appointment in the vacancy of
Group 'D' employees.
And
Parties in OA No. 609 of 2019:
1. Mant Lal, Son of Late Dhan Raj, Resident of Village Har
Sewakpur No. 2, Post Bichhiya, PSC Campt. District - Gorakhpur.
2. Rama Nand, S/o Ram Bihari, R/o Village - Bhagwanpur, P O
Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur.
3. Ram Ratan, S/o Prayag, R/o Village and P O Jangal Aurahiya,
District Gorakhpur.
4. Ram Das, S/o Prayag, R/o Village and P O Jangal Aurahiya,
District Gorakhpur.
5. Phool Chand, S/o Ram Subhag, R/o Village - Turkwalia, P O
Pipiganj, District Gorakhpur.
35
6. Birbal, S/o Sahtoo, R/o Bahrampur, P O Chaurahia, Kusami Bazar,
District Gorakhpur.
7. Param Hans, S/o Suraj, R/o Village - Dhodhra Ahirwati, P O
Bhainsaha via Sadar Nagar, District Gorakhpur.
8. Phool Chand, S/o Govind, R/o Village - Chaurahia, P O Kusami
Bazar, District Gorakhpur.
........... APPLICANTS
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Eastern Railway,
Gorakhpur.
2. Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri K K Ojha
Brief facts in OA No. 609 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 609 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents during 1981 and were retrenched later are
aggrieved from the fact that although some of those retrenched casual
labours have been reengaged by the respondents pursuant to the orders
passed by different Courts including the Apex Court, the applicants
herein have been denied the same pursuant to the screening the result
of which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of
overage despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way
of the instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants seek a direction
to the respondents to allow them age relaxation thereby giving them
appointment in the department along with granting seniority and all
36
consequential benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed
to be declared eligible for appointment as has been done by them with
reference to other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 942 of 2021:
1. Rajendra aged about 59 years, Son of Shri Chinkan, R/o Village
Sukahi, Post Office Sardar Nagar, District Gorakhpur.
2. Rajpati, aged about 58 years, Son of Shri Vanshraj, R/o Village
Awadhpur Gadwa Tola, Post Office Awadhpur via Sardar Nagar,
District Gorakhpur.
3. Ram Naresh aged about 59 years, Son of Shri Mangal, R/o Village
Awadhpur Darogaji Ki Chhavni, Post Office Sardar Nagar, District
Gorakhpur.
4. Ram Kewal Yadav aged about 58 years, Son of Shri Bali Karan
Yadav, R/o Village Jhharna Tola, Post Office Kuda Ghat, District
Gorakhpur.
5. Parasnath, aged about 59 years, Son of late Dukhharam, R/o
Village Jhharna Tola, Post Office Kuda Ghat, District Gorakhpur.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Sunil and Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through Director Establishment (N), Railway
Board, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
37
By Advocate: Shri Pramod Kumar Rai
Brief facts in OA No. 942 of 2021:
The applicants in OA No. 942 of 2021 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents during 1981 and were retrenched later are
aggrieved from the fact that although some of those retrenched casual
labours have been reengaged by the respondents pursuant to the orders
passed by different Courts including the Apex Court, the applicants
herein have been denied the same pursuant to the screening the result
of which was declared on 25.03.2010 merely on the ground of
overage despite being similarly situated to those employees. By way
of the instant application, applicants have alleged that contrary to the
statutory rules and ruling of the Apex Court, respondents have
appointed those persons who are junior to the applicants thereby
denying reengagement of the applicants. Applicants have prayed for
quashing of the order dated 23.09.2021 by way of which their
representations have been decided thereby rejecting their claim for
reengagement. Applicants also seek a direction to the respondents to
allow them age relaxation thereby giving them appointment in the
department along with granting seniority and all consequential
benefits w.e.f. 01.04.1999 i.e., the date they are deemed to be declared
eligible for appointment as has been done by them with reference to
other similarly situated persons.
And
Parties in OA No. 960 of 2021:
Sunil Kumar, aged about 40 years, S/o Shri Ramvir Singh, Resident of
Village - Lakhanpur, Post Office - Kesari, District - Firozabad.
........ Applicant
By Advocate: Shri L S Kushwaha
Versus
38
1. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj,
Allahabad.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Nawab
Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
3. The Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Nawab
Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
4. Additional Divisional Engineer, North Central Railway, Firozabad.
5. Senior Section Engineer (P.Way), North Central Railway,
Sikohabad.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri K K Ojha
Brief facts in OA No. 960 of 2021:
The applicant in OA No. 960 of 2021 is aggrieved from the fact that
his claim for reengagement as per his fitness in medical examination
in category A-3 has been rejected by the respondents on the ground
of non-availability of service record despite the fact that he had
worked in the respondents' department as a trackman. By way of the
instant original application, applicant has prayed for quashing of the
order dated 21.10.2021 through which his representation has been
disposed of by the respondents thereby rejecting his claim for
reengagement. He also seeks a direction to the respondent to
reengage him in service as per his medical category with further
direction to consider him for screening / absorption in accordance
with the statutory rules and circulars which speak for providing
absorption / reengagement to ex-casual labours whose names are
born on casual labour live register. He further seeks a direction to the
respondents to grant him the benefit of regularization of service with
all consequential benefits.
And
39
Parties in OA No. 368 of 2019:
1. Ram Adhar S/o Late Dukhanti aged about 55 years R/o Village
Awadhpur (Gadhwa Tola) P.O. Sardar Nagar, District Gorakhpur,
U.P.
2. Ramayan S/o Late Chinkan aged about 54 years R/o Village
Jodhpur Bazha, P O Sardar Nagar, Gorakhpur, U.P.
3. Om Lal S/o Dhanu aged about 56 years, R/o P.O. Sardar Nagarm
Gorakhpur, U.P.
........ Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S K Mishra
Versus
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, North Eastern
Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Varanasi.
3. The Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), N.E. Railway,
Gorakhpur.
-----Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra
Brief facts in OA No. 368 of 2019:
The applicants in OA No. 368 of 2019 are ex-casual labours initially
engaged by the respondents sometime in 1981 and were retrenched
later. They are aggrieved from the fact that although some of those
retrenched casual labours have been reengaged by the respondents
pursuant to the orders passed by different Courts, the applicants herein
have been denied the same. Applicants are seeking quashing of the
impugned order dated 16.09.2010 passed by respondent no. 3 thereby
directing the respondents to consider for reengagement of applicants
in Group - D post and regularized them after re-screening
40
accordingly. They also seek a direction to the respondents to give
them same benefits as have been given to Shri Ambika Singh and
others who are junior to the applicants.
ORDER
Learned counsels Shri Ashish Srivastava, Shri A D Singh, Shri S K Mishra, Shri Satish Dwivedi, Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, Shri Sunil, Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma and Shri L S Kushwaha were present for the applicants in their respective cases at the time of hearing.
2. Learned counsels Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai, Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, Shri Ajay Kumar Rai, Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra and Shri M P Mishra were present for the respondents in their respective cases at the time of hearing.
3. As the facts of each case has been recorded above, the same is not being reiterated for the sake of brevity. However, each counsel argued the matter at length during the course of hearing, hence, it would be pertinent to record the averments as advanced by different counsels appearing for the applicants and respondents in their respective cases.
4. Shri Ashish Srivastava is the learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 31 of 2019, OA No. 13 of 2019, OA No. 52 of 2019, OA No. 69 of 2019, OA No. 329 of 2019, OA No. 726 of 2019, OA No. 1143 of 2019, OA No. 330 of 2019, OA No. 820 of 2019, OA No. 1424 of 2019, OA No. 54 of 2019 and OA No. 819 of 2010. As the submission of Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants in all the above cases are similar, only submissions advanced in OA No. 31 of 2019 are being recorded here for the sake of brevity. Initiating his arguments, learned counsel argues that all the applicants shall be deemed to have acquired temporary status as they had discharged the minimum required days of service which is 41 required for granting temporary status and therefore the retrenchment of those casual workers from service without complying with the requirement prescribed under Section 25 of the Industrial Disputes Act is illegal. The said act specifically rules that no workman in any industry shall be retrenched by the employer unless the workman is given one month notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and for the period of notice, the workman will be paid wages. In the present case, all the applicants had attained the temporary status and were thrown out from the department without following the norms of the act stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants goes on to submit that aggrieved by the above act of the respondents, one Shri Indra Pal Yadav filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 147 of 1983 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was allowed by the Apex Court thereby directing the respondents to open a casual labour register and include the name of all the project casual labours in it. The said direction was complied with by the respondents although not in letter and spirit. Learned counsel submits that consequent to the direction of the Apex Court, casual labours were added in several batches in an absolute surreptitious manner without issuing any notification and also by way of discriminating a few casual labours on the basis of category. Learned counsel further submits that in absolute contradiction to the norm laid down by the Apex Court in Inder Pal case (supra) wherein it was specifically held that there shall be a live casual register and those persons will be offered appointment whose names are there in live casual register on the basis of their position and no recruitment will be made from the open market, respondents engaged many fresh hand casual labours in the year 1993. After discharging duties of 120 days, they were granted temporary status in the railway department in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. Furthermore, the respondents later notified about 5000 group D post through employment notice which clearly reveals that huge number of vacancies was lying vacant and they were not being disclosed earlier 42 just to avoid any engagement through ex-casual register. This act of the respondents is in contradiction to their own Circular issued on 17.01.2003 which provides that any appointment by way of fresh recruitment can be resorted only after the casual labours enrolled in the live casual register are completely exhausted.
6. Learned counsel Shri Ashish Srivastava further argues that upon the said illegal action of the respondents as stated in preceding paragraphs, applicants approached the respondents expressing their resentment. Consequently, Railway Board issued a letter dated 18.01.2008 directing the respondents to avert from the above exercise. Subsequently, respondents decided to fill up the vacancies of Group - D amongst the ex-casual labours existing in the roll of the N.E. Railway. A large number of ex casual labours were issued call letters regarding their screening and absorption in the department and 01.04.1999 was fixed as the cut-off date.
7. Learned counsel Shri Ashish Srivastava further submits that the seniority list dated 01.04.1999 was a revisional seniority list of the ex- casual labours existing in the live and supplementary casual labour register. The said list was constructed in terms of the Board's letter which imposes certain eligibility condition for absorption of the ex- casual labours and in accordance with the same particularly the casual labours within the age of 40, 43 and 45 for General, OBC and SC/ST respectively were only kept in the aforesaid list for their absorption. However, learned counsel submits that this decision of the respondents was contrary to paragraph (III) (b) of para 2006 of the Indian Railway Establishment Vol.II edition 1989 which provides that as long as it is established that a casual labour has been enrolled within the prescribed age limit, relaxation in the upper age limit at the time of actual appointment should be automatic and guided by this factor. In old cases where age limit was not observed, relaxation of age was to be considered sympathetically and the DRM may exercise such powers to grant such relaxation in the age limit. Learned counsel 43 further submits that all the applicants were called upon for their screening but in an absolute violation of the direction of the Apex Court in Inder Pal case (supra), respondents did not reengage the applicant on the pretext that as and when the vacancy will crop up, they will be offered appointment. A letter was later issued by the respondents whereby it was informed to all the applicants vide letter dated 5/21.04.2010 that on the basis of screening, they have been declared ineligible for reengagement vide order dated 25.03.2010.
8. Learned counsel Shri Ashish Srivastava goes on to submit that some of the similarly situated casual labours as the applicants, who were aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2010 of the respondents, approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench seeking the redressal of their grievance by way of an Original Application No. 607 of 2014. The said application was dismissed on the ground that applicants have failed to show that there was any violation of rule while rejecting their claim. However, many of the similarly situated casual labours approached before the Tribunal through different original applications and their applications have been disposed of by the Tribunal directing the respondents to grant those casual labours age relaxation and consequently they have been reengaged. Learned counsel further submits that applicants are on the same footing as above employees and as such they are also entitled for reengagement in the same manner after being granted age relaxation. However, the applicants have been left bereft of the above benefit and as such they have approached this Tribunal.
9. Learned counsel Shri Ashish Srivastava further submits that the fact that applicants ought to have been granted the benefit of reengagement after allowing age relaxation as has been done with similarly situated persons is also supported by the judgment dated 10.12.1974 of the Apex Court in case of Amrit Lal Berry V/s CCE reported in 1975 2 SCC 714. To further substantiate this argument regarding extending of judicial decisions in matters of a general nature 44 to all similarly placed employees, learned counsel also relies upon paragraph 126.5 of the Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (Volume III). Learned counsel further submits that respondents have decided to grant age relaxation only to those candidates in favour of whom this court has allowed age relaxation, however, in accordance with the provision contained in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are under obligation to implement the judgment with reference to all similarly placed persons including the applicants.
10. Learned counsels Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai, Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, Shri Ajay Kumar Rai and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra appearing for the respondents in their respective cases amongst OA No. 31 of 2019, OA No. 13 of 2019, OA No. 52 of 2019, OA No. 69 of 2019, OA No. 329 of 2019, OA No. 726 of 2019, OA No. 1143 of 2019, OA No. 330 of 2019, OA No. 820 of 2019, OA No. 1424 of 2019, OA No. 54 of 2019 and OA No. 819 of 2010 vehemently opposed the averments advanced by Shri Ashish Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicants in above stated cases. The arguments advanced in above said OAs are identical and as such for the sake of brevity, submissions advanced in OA No. 31 of 2019 only are being recorded here. However, in case the Court finds it relevant and necessary to quote submissions other than one recorded in OA No. 31 of 2019, the same shall be done.
11. By way of the counter affidavits filed in their respective cases, they have submitted that casual labours are engaged by the department due to the work load that arises because of establishment of new units and the process of appointment is initiated in accordance with the relevant rules and provisions that govern the subject matter. Once the workload reduces and the department feels no necessity of keeping such huge workforce engaged further, the casual labours are retrenched. The same was done in the instant case of the applicants as 45 they were retrenched on account of reduction of workload and paucity of fund with due adherence to the rules laid down in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and others statutory provisions.
12. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that in compliance of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Indrapal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1985 2 SCC 648 which was decided on 18.04.1985, a seniority list of all project casual labours was prepared for their engagement / reengagement and casual live register was also prepared in this regard. As per the need of casual labours in new project, they were reengaged from the aforesaid casual live register up to the year 1992. A few of the casual labours who were already managing the work of new projects were on rolled and there was no additional requirement of casual labours to carry out the project works. All the casual labours who were on rolled were regularized later. In order to update the live register which was prepared earlier, a notification was issued advising all the ex-casual labours whose names were mentioned in the said register to present themselves before the department on specified dates for their screening. That for the year 2007-08, budget outlay was increased and hence stood demand of workforce due to which 500 work charged post for engagement of track man were created only for the financial year 2007-08. All the ex-casual labours along with the applicants whose names were there in the above said live register were called for screening. The screening result was declared and the applicants were informed that they have been found unsuitable. Learned counsels submit that in some of the original applications under discussion which pertain to the year 2019, it is pertinent to be noted that after a gap of nine years from the date of cause of action i.e., 2010, against screening results the applicants have preferred their original applications which is highly time barred and the said applications are liable to be dismissed on this very ground itself. To substantiate this argument, reliance was placed upon judgment passed by the Apex 46 Court in case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in 1993 2 SCC 162.
13. Learned counsels for the respondents go on to submit that the main ground on which the case of the applicants was rejected was them being overage. This fact was cogently highlighted in Railway Board's Circular vide RBE No. 42 of 2001 dated 28.02.2001. The case of the applicants was meticulously considered and examined in light of the rules framed in the said letter dated 28.02.2001. It is pertinent to be noted that the question of removal of minimum three years' service conditions (continuous or broken) for the purpose of grant of age relaxation to ex-casual labour as mentioned in the above letter was taken up for examination. And after due ponderance, it was decided that the ex-causal labour who had put in minimum 120 days casual service, whether continuous or in broken spells, and were initially engaged as casual labour within the prescribed age limit of 28 years for general candidates and 33 years for SC / ST candidates, would be given age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 40 years in the case of general candidates, 43 years in the case of OBC candidates and 45 years in the case of SC / ST candidates. Other provisions for their absorption in Group 'D' will remain unaltered. And ultimately, ex- casual labours who become eligible in light of above set rules shall be subjected to regularization in future. The case of the applicants was considered by the respondents in light of the above stated rules and they were found unsuitable thereafter. And thus, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the procedure that was followed in this regard by the respondents. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 10457 of 2000 decided on 05.08.2005.
14. Learned counsels for the respondents go on to further submit that the instant case of the applicants stands settled and as such no infirmity can be attributed to it. Applicants' cases were rejected on reasonable grounds strictly adhering to the procedure laid down for 47 the purpose and as such the Tribunal has got a very little scope to interfere in the policy laid down by the competent authority of the respondents' department. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels rely upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd and ors Vs. Dr. P Sabasiva Rao and ors. reported in 1996 7 SCC 499 and in Government of Orissa and ors Vs. Hanichaail Roy and ors reported in 1998 6 SCC 626.
15. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that applicants are placing reliance in the case OA No. 127 of 1997 titled Chote Lal and ors. Vs. UOI and ors in which Ambika Singh was one of the applicants and he was granted age relaxation consequent to directions of the Tribunal. However, it would be pertinent to mention that in the said case, Ambika Singh was granted the benefit only after he filed a contempt petition in the said case. In the order dated 06.07.2001 passed in the original application, Ambika Singh was never granted any relief. Furthermore, there was a clear direction of the Tribunal that each and every applicant's case shall be examined individually and decided accordingly. Thus, the applicants herein cannot claim parity with the case of Ambika Singh wherein different facts and circumstances were operating. Further, applicants are absolutely wrong in claiming for parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is not at all associated with the instant case. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad reported in 2000 (9) SCC 94 held that the scope of Article 14 cannot be misinterpreted. The same view was taken by the Apex Court in the case of Gursharan Singh and Ors Vs. NDMC and Ors repoted in 1996 (2) SCC 459 and in the case of Secretary, Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur Vs. Daulat Mal Jain and Ors. reported in 1997(1) SCC 35.
16. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that a few of the similarly situated ex-casual labours approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 607 of 2014 claiming their reengagement by granting 48 them age relaxation and challenged the screening results. However, the said OA was dismissed on 17.12.2018 without affording any relief to the aggrieved parties.
17. As regards to the contentions of the applicants that 5000 vacancies were released but applicants were not considered for reengagement, learned counsels for the respondents submit that construction organization is having work charged post, which depends on the financial budget for running the construction work. Out of total 4549 group D posts, only 500 posts were meant for construction organization and the rest were for other departments. In the said advertisement, applications were invited from Ex-Casual labours also, who fulfills the eligibility criteria. The entire process was done in accordance with relevant rules and the same stands completed on this date.
18. Learned counsels for the respondents also submit that as claimed by the applicants, paragraph III (b) of Para 2006 of the Indian Railway Establishment Vol. II edition 1989 is not applicable in the present case of the applicants. It is applicable in case of casual labours who are enrolled and working at the time of screening. The applicants were neither enrolled nor working at the time of screening. And all casual labours who were enrolled and working had been regularized up to 31.12.1997. Furthermore, para 2006(i) of the IREM clearly stipulates that absorption of casual labours in Group 'D' employment may be considered in accordance with instructions issued by Railway Board from time to time. And thus, applicants herein cannot allege that their case was rejected without following the relevant statutory rules. The applicants' case was rejected as they were overage at the time of screening.
19. Learned counsels for the respondents' further state that applicants were over aged at the time of screening in the year 2008 itself and delay in declaration of screening result did not cause any 49 loss to the applicants in assessment of their suitability. Thus, referring to the above recorded contentions, learned counsels for the respondents pray that the instant case of the applicants be dismissed, being devoid of merits.
20. Shri A D Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1267 of 2012 submits that services of the applicants who are placed at different serial numbers of the Seniority List of casual labours dated 23.4.1992 prepared by the respondents have not been regularized. However, services of those casual labours who are junior to the applicants and have been placed at below them in the said seniority list have been regularized. This is clear violation of the principal of natural justice as well as a clear example of respondents' not applying their minds while regularizing the applicants. Learned counsel submits that an identically placed casual labour approached this Tribunal by way of OA No. 761 of 1995 titled All India Hot Weather Water Man Association and others Vs. Union of India with a prayer of providing employment by including them in the consolidated seniority list thereby granting them all consequential benefits. The said OA was decided on 01.01.2003 directing the respondents to consider the case of the applicants therein and on finding their case fit, grant them the benefit of regularization from the date as given to their juniors. Learned counsel pleads for consideration of the applicants' case in line with the decision rendered in OA No. 761 of 1995. Learned counsel further submits that the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents in the instant case is violative of Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
21. Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 1267 of 2012 vehemently opposes the prayer of the applicants' counsel Shri A D Singh and by way of his Counter, submits that the applicants were found out of service since more than last 20 years and never filed any OA for regularization nor challenged their retrenchment. During this period, persons junior to the applicants 50 were regularized. Thus, the present OA is highly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed on this very ground itself. Learned counsel further submits that similarly placed applicants have filed several applications in different Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal and their cases have been dismissed being devoid of merits and also on the ground of jurisdiction in some cases. Thus, there is no scope to allow the instant original application.
22. Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 1267 of 2012 further submits that the matter of casual labour was decided by the Apex Court in the year 1985 in the case of Indra Pal Yadav (supra) where Casual Live Register was to be maintained Unit Wise and Division Wise. Since at the relevant time, applicants were posted in Jaipur Division of Western Railway their name may be mentioned in Casual Live Register as per Railway Board Circular, as such the cause of action for entering applicants name in Casual Live Register / Regularisation only exists in Western Railway Jaipur Division, where the applicants' records may have been maintained and as such the applicants may get their relief if entitled as per extent rules.
23. Shri S K Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 232 of 2008 and OA No. 368 of 2019 argues that all the applicants are ex-casual labours who have worked more than 120 days in their respective departments and thus have attained temporary status. They even find their names in the Live Casual Register and as such they are entitled for reengagement and regularization in accordance with the law laid down in the Apex Court judgment Indra Pal Yadav (supra). Furthermore, respondents issued notification for engaging fresh casual labours from open market and ignored the applicants thereby completely contradicting the law laid down in the Apex Court's judgment that existing manpower has to be employed before recruiting fresh hands. When the applicants were called for screening, they were simply denied re-engagement on the ground of being 51 overage. Further, learned counsel for the applicants further argues that some of the persons who are junior to the applicants have been regularized while the applicants were still awaiting their turn. Specifically in case of OA No. 368 of 2019, learned counsel submits that when the applicants were rejected in screening, they approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 927 of 2010 which was disposed of on 08.07.2010 by the Tribunal directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order deciding the case of the applicants. However, respondents passed an unreasoned impugned order dated 16.03.2010 rejecting the case of the applicants. However, the Tribunal has allowed another case of similarly situated applicants i.e., OA No. 127 of 1997 wherein a direction was given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants therein. Against the directions given in that case, respondents approached Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad through W P No. 14939 of 2011 titled UOI Vs Ambika Singh wherein the respondents failed to get any relief. Subsequently, complying with the Tribunal's order, respondents gave appointment to Shri Amibka Singh. Having been placed on the same footing, applicants also approached respondents with their representations to accord them similar benefits as have been accorded to Shri Ambika Singh. However, their prayer was not accepted. Thus, the applicants have approached this Tribunal. As regards to the limitation period, the applicants' counsel is placing reliance on the judgment passed in OA No. 1696 of 1992 titled Hukum Singh Vs Union of India by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal wherein it was held that for recurring cause of action, rule of limitation will not apply. Applicants are also placing reliance on the judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed in OA No. 75 of 2013 by Patna Bench of Central Administrative tribunal wherein relief has been granted to the similarly placed persons.
24. Shri M P Mishra is the learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 232 of 2008 and Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra is the learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 368 of 2019. Learned 52 counsels' first objection is regarding the delay occurred in filing this case. It is submitted that with regard to the delay occurred in the instant case, applicants cannot claim parity with the judgment passed in Hukum Singh case (supra) as the facts and circumstances of that case were entirely different from the present case of the applicants. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels have placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in case of Union of India Vs. Harnam Singh reported in 1993 (2) SCC 162. As regards to the issue of regularization, learned counsels submit that as per extant rule temporary status is granted after completion of 180 days service in project and 120 days in open line. After granting of temporary status, it does not mean that employees should be regularized in service unless they are screened by a duly constituted screening committee.
25. Learned counsels further submit that casual labours are engaged by the department due to the work load that arises because of establishment of new units and the process of appointment is initiated in accordance with the relevant rules and provisions that govern the subject matter. Once the workload reduces and the department feels no necessity of keeping such huge workforce engaged further, the casual labours are retrenched. The same was done in the instant case of the applicants as they were retrenched on account of reduction of workload and paucity of fund with due adherence to the rules laid down in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and others statutory provisions.
26. Shri M P Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 232 of 2008, by way of his counter affidavit submits that the judgment of the Apex Court in Inder Pal Yadav case (supra) is not applicable in the case of the applicants as in the said judgment, it was directed that each Zonal Railway should prepare a list of project of casual labour with reference to each division of each Railway on the basis of length of service. The men / person with longest service shall have priority over those who joined later on. The live register had been prepared as per the said judgment and therefore no violation of 53 Article of the Constitution of India 14 took place as in Construction Unit, there was no supplementary live casual labour register. Further, the claim of the applicants that persons junior to them have been regularized is completely wrong and misconceived. Learned counsel also submits that no direct recruitment from the open market was made by the respondents. As regards to appointment of new faces, it is submitted that keeping in view the exigencies of Railway Work, General Manager of the Zonal Railway has got the special powers to engage the class IV employee as substitutes as new faces to cope up with the work.
27. Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 368 of 2019 further submits that in compliance of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Indrapal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) SCC 648 which was decided on 18.04.1985, a seniority list of all project casual labours was prepared for their engagement / reengagement and casual live register was also prepared in this regard. As per the need of casual labours in new project, they were reengaged from the aforesaid casual live register up to the year 1992. A few of the casual labours who were already managing the work of new projects were enrolled and there was no additional requirement of casual labours to carry out the project works. All the casual labours who were on rolled were regularized later. In order to update the live register which was prepared earlier, a notification was issued advising all the ex-casual labours whose names were mentioned in the said register to present themselves before the department on specified dates for their screening. That for the year 2007-08, budget outlay was increased and hence stood demand of workforce due to which 500 work charged post for engagement of track man were created only for the financial year 2007-08. All the ex-casual labours along with the applicants whose names were there in the above said live register were called for screening. The screening result was declared and the applicants were informed that they have been found unsuitable. Learned counsel for 54 the respondents goes on to submit that the main ground on which the case of the applicants was rejected was them being overage. This fact was cogently highlighted in Railway Board's Circular vide RBE No. 42 of 2001 dated 28.02.2001. The case of the applicants was meticulously considered and examined in light of the rules framed in the said letter dated 28.02.2001. It is pertinent to be noted that the question of removal of minimum three years' service conditions (continuous or broken) for the purpose of grant of age relaxation to ex-casual labour as mentioned in the above letter was taken up for examination. And after due ponderance, it was decided that the ex- causal labour who had put in minimum 120 days casual service, whether continuous or in broken spells, and were initially engaged as casual labour within the prescribed age limit of 28 years for general candidates and 33 years for SC / ST candidates, would be given age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 40 years in the case of general candidates, 43 years in the case of OBC candidates and 45 years in the case of SC / ST candidates. Other provisions for their absorption in Group 'D' will remain unaltered. And ultimately, ex-casual labours who become eligible in light of above set rules shall be subjected to regularization in future. The case of the applicants was considered by the respondents in light of the above stated rules and they were found unsuitable thereafter. And thus, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the procedure that was followed in this regard by the respondents. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels rely on judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 10457 of 2000 decided on 05.08.2005.
28. Learned counsel Shri S C Mishra further submits that the instant case of the applicants stands settled and as such no infirmity can be attributed to it. Applicants' cases were rejected on reasonable grounds strictly adhering to the procedure laid down for the purpose and as such the Tribunal has got a very little scope to interfere in the policy laid down by the competent authority of the respondents' department. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels rely upon 55 judgment passed by the Apex Court in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd and ors Vs. Dr. P Sabasiva Rao and ors. reported in 1996 (7) SCC 499, in Government of Orissa and ors Vs. Hanichaail Roy and ors reported in 1998 (6) SCC 626.
29. Shri S C Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents further submits that applicants are placing reliance in the case OA No. 127 of 1997 titled Chote Lal and ors. Vs. UOI and ors in which Ambika Singh was one of the applicants and he was granted age relaxation consequent to directions of the Tribunal. However, it would be pertinent to mention that in the said case, Ambika Singh was granted the benefit only after he filed a contempt petition in the said case. In the order dated 06.07.2001 passed in the original application, Ambika Singh was never granted any relief. Furthermore, there was a clear direction of the Tribunal that each and every applicant's case shall be examined individually and decided accordingly. Thus, the applicants herein cannot claim parity with the case of Ambika Singh wherein different facts and circumstances were operating. Further, applicants are absolutely wrong in claiming for parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is not at all associated with the instant case. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad reported in 2000 (9) SCC 94 held that the scope of Article 14 cannot be misinterpreted. Learned counsel further submits that a few of the similarly situated ex-casual labours approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 607 of 2014 claiming their reengagement by granting them age relaxation and challenged the screening results. However, the said OA was dismissed on 17.12.2018 without affording any relief to the aggrieved parties. As regards to the contentions of the applicants that 5000 vacancies were released but applicants were not considered for reengagement, learned counsels for the respondents submit that construction organization is having work charged post, which depends on the financial budget for running the construction work. Out of total 4549 group D posts, only 500 posts were meant for construction organization and the rest were for other departments. In the said 56 advertisement, applications were invited from Ex-Casual labours also, who fulfills the eligibility criteria. The entire process was done in accordance with relevant rules and the same stands completed on this date.
30. Shri Satish Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 1831 of 2012 argues that applicants were fully qualified for regular appointment in 'Group D' vacancy under the respondents when engaged as Casual Mali / Garden Attendant against permanent post and in substantive vacancy under the respondents in Archaeological Survey of India, Agra by the competent authority from different dates and they continued to work against the permanent post and in substantive vacancy of Group 'D' employee up to November 2011. However, without disclosing any reason, respondents disengaged the applicants arbitrarily and illegally w.e.f. 1.12.2011. This action of the respondents of disengaging the applicants after their continuous service of more than 11 to 16 years without any rhyme and reason and without passing any order terminating their services is highly arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and unjustified in law. Furthermore, respondents have retained several casual workers whose period of service is much less than the applicants. The respondents even have engaged fresh casual workers and also junior persons. This autocratic action of the respondents has affected the life and livelihood of the applicants and their family as when they were expecting their services would be regularized, they have been disengaged from their services. Learned counsel submits that the fact of engagement, disengagement and continuous service of applicants can be verified by the records available with the respondents. Seeking redressal of their grievance, applicants also submitted a detailed representation upon which no action has been taken yet.
31. Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 1831 of 2012 denies the claim of the applicants and by way of his counter affidavit, submits that all the applicants except 57 applicant no. 2 Shri Ram Mohan have never worked in the Archaeological Gardens situated in Fatehpur Sikri and Agra. Applicant no. 2 was engaged on daily wages basis for the seasonal work for a short period of seven days but he was never engaged regularly. His engagement came to an end once the work was over so applicant's claim that fresh and junior persons have been engaged, is false. It is an admitted fact that daily wages casual labours have not right for regular appointment. This view has also been upheld by the Apex Court in several cases. Further, no representation has ever been received from the applicants. Thus, learned counsel requests that the instant case is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.
32. Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants in O.A. No. 609 of 2019 and Shri Sunil and Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma, learned counsels for the applicants in OA No. 942 of 2021 argue that one Shri Indra Pal Yadav filed a petition bearing Writ Petition No. 147 of 1983 before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India which was allowed by the Apex Court thereby directing the respondents to open a casual labour register and include the name of all the project casual labours in it. The said direction was complied with by the respondents although not in letter and spirit. Learned counsel submits that consequent to the direction of the Apex Court, casual labours were added in several batches in an absolute surreptitious manner without issuing any notification and also by way of discriminating a few casual labours on the basis of category. Learned counsels further submit that in absolute contradiction to the norm laid down by the Apex Court in Inder Pal case (supra) wherein it was specifically held that there shall be a live casual register and those persons will be offered appointment whose names are there in live casual register on the basis of their position and no recruitment will be made from the open market, respondents engaged many fresh hand casual labours in the year 1993. After discharging duties of 120 days, they were granted temporary status in the railway department in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940. Furthermore, the respondents later notified 58 about 5000 group D post through employment notice which clearly reveals that huge number of vacancies was lying vacant and they were not being disclosed earlier just to avoid any engagement through ex- casual register. This act of the respondents is in contradiction to their own Circular issued on 17.01.2003 which provides that any appointment by way of fresh recruitment can be resorted only after the casual labours enrolled in the live casual register are completely exhausted.
33. Learned counsels Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, Shri Sunil and Shri Avinash Kumar Sharma further argue that upon the said illegal action of the respondents as stated in preceding paragraphs, applicants approached the respondents expressing their resentment. Consequently, Railway Board issued a letter dated 18.01.2008 directing the respondents to avert from the above exercise. Subsequently, respondents decided to fill up the vacancies of Group - D amongst the ex-casual labours existing in the roll of the N.E. Railway. A large number of ex casual labours were issued call letters regarding their screening and absorption in the department and 01.04.1999 was fixed as the cut-off date. Learned counsels further submit that the seniority list dated 01.04.1999 was a revisional seniority list of the ex-casual labours existing in the live and supplementary casual labour register. The said list was constructed in terms of the Board's letter which imposes certain eligibility condition for absorption of the ex-casual labours and in accordance with the same particularly the casual labours within the age of 40, 43 and 45 for General, OBC and SC/ST respectively were only kept in the aforesaid list for their absorption. However, learned counsels submit that this decision of the respondents was contrary to paragraph (III)
(b) of para 2006 of the Indian Railway Establishment Vol.II edition 1989 which provides that as long as it is established that a casual labour has been enrolled within the prescribed age limit, relaxation in the upper age limit at the time of actual appointment should be automatic and guided by this factor. In old cases where age limit was 59 not observed, relaxation of age was to be considered sympathetically and the DRM may exercise such powers to grant such relaxation in the age limit. Learned counsels submit that all the applicants were called upon for their screening but in an absolute violation of the direction of the Apex Court in Inder Pal case (supra), respondents did not reengage the applicant on the pretext that as and when the vacancy will crop up, they will be offered appointment. A letter was later issued by the respondents whereby it was informed to all the applicants that on the basis of screening, they have been declared ineligible for reengagement vide order dated 25.03.2010.
34. Learned counsels go on to submit that some of the similarly situated casual labours as the applicants, who were aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2010 of the respondents, approached Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench seeking the redressal of their grievance by way of an Original Application No. 607 of 2014. The said application was dismissed on the ground that applicants have failed to show that there was any violation of rule while rejecting their claim. However, many of the similarly situated casual labours approached before the Tribunal through different original applications and their applications have been disposed of by the Tribunal directing the respondents to grant those casual labours age relaxation and consequently they have been reengaged. Learned counsels further submit that applicants are on the same footing as above employees and as such they are also entitled for reengagement in the same manner after being granted age relaxation. However, the applicants have been left bereft of the above benefit and as such they have approached this Tribunal.
35. Learned counsels further submit that the fact that applicants ought to have been granted the benefit of reengagement after allowing age relaxation as has been done with similarly situated persons is also supported by the judgment dated 10.12.1974 of the Apex Court in case of Amrit Lal Berry V/s CCE reported in 1975 (2) SCC 714. To 60 further substantiate this argument regarding extending of judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed employees, learned counsels also rely upon paragraph 126.5 of the Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (Volume III). Learned counsels further submit that respondents have decided to grant age relaxation only to those candidates in favour of whom this court has allowed age relaxation, however, in accordance with the provision contained in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the respondents are under obligation to implement the judgment with reference to all similarly placed persons including the applicants.
36. Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 609 of 2019 and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 942 of 2021 submit that in compliance of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Indrapal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) SCC 648 which was decided on 18.04.1985, a seniority list of all project casual labours was prepared for their engagement / reengagement and casual live register was also prepared in this regard. As per the need of casual labours in new project, they were reengaged from the aforesaid casual live register up to the year 1992. A few of the casual labours who were already managing the work of new projects were on rolled and there was no additional requirement of casual labours to carry out the project works. All the casual labours who were enrolled were regularized later. In order to update the live register which was prepared earlier, a notification was issued advising all the ex-casual labours whose names were mentioned in the said register to present themselves before the department on specified dates for their screening. That for the year 2007-08, budget outlay was increased and hence stood demand of workforce due to which 500 work charged post for engagement of track man were created only for the financial year 2007-08. All the ex-casual labours along with the applicants whose names were there in the above said live register were called for screening. The screening result was declared and the applicants were 61 informed that they have been found unsuitable. Learned counsels go on to submit that the main ground on which the case of the applicants was rejected was them being overage. This fact was cogently highlighted in Railway Board's Circular vide RBE No. 42 of 2001 dated 28.02.2001. The case of the applicants was meticulously considered and examined in light of the rules framed in the said letter dated 28.02.2001. It is pertinent to be noted that the question of removal of minimum three years' service conditions (continuous or broken) for the purpose of grant of age relaxation to ex-casual labour as mentioned in the above letter was taken up for examination. And after due ponderance, it was decided that the ex-causal labour who had put in minimum 120 days casual service, whether continuous or in broken spells, and were initially engaged as casual labour within the prescribed age limit of 28 years for general candidates and 33 years for SC / ST candidates, would be given age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 40 years in the case of general candidates, 43 years in the case of OBC candidates and 45 years in the case of SC / ST candidates. Other provisions for their absorption in Group 'D' will remain unaltered. And ultimately, ex-casual labours who become eligible in light of above set rules shall be subjected to regularization in future. The case of the applicants was considered by the respondents in light of the above stated rules and they were found unsuitable thereafter. And thus, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the procedure that was followed in this regard by the respondents. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels rely on judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 10457 of 2000 decided on 05.08.2005.
37. Learned counsel Shri K K Ojha and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai further submit that the instant case of the applicants' stands settled and as such no infirmity can be attributed to it. Applicants' cases were rejected on reasonable grounds strictly adhering to the procedure laid down for the purpose and as such the Tribunal has got a very little scope to interfere in the policy laid down by the competent authority 62 of the respondents' department. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels rely upon judgment passed by the Apex Court in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd and ors Vs. Dr. P Sabasiva Rao and ors. reported in 1996 (7) SCC 499, in Government of Orissa and ors Vs. Hanichaail Roy and ors reported in 1998 (6) SCC 626.
38. Learned counsels Shri K K Ojha and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai further submit that applicants are placing reliance in the case OA No. 127 of 1997 titled Chote Lal and ors. Vs. UOI and ors in which Ambika Singh was one of the applicants and he was granted age relaxation consequent to directions of the Tribunal. However, it would be pertinent to mention that in the said case, Ambika Singh was granted the benefit only after he filed a contempt petition in the said case. In the order dated 06.07.2001 passed in the original application, Ambika Singh was never granted any relief. Furthermore, there was a clear direction of the Tribunal that each and every applicant's case shall be examined individually and decided accordingly. Thus, the applicants herein cannot claim parity with the case of Ambika Singh wherein different facts and circumstances were operating. Further, applicants are absolutely wrong in claiming for parity under Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it is not at all associated with the instant case. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Kameshwar Prasad reported in 2000 (9) SCC 94 held that the scope of Article 14 cannot be misinterpreted. Learned counsels further submit that a few of the similarly situated ex-casual labours approached the Tribunal by way of OA No. 607 of 2014 claiming their reengagement by granting them age relaxation and challenged the screening results. However, the said OA was dismissed on 17.12.2018 without affording any relief to the aggrieved parties. As regards to the contentions of the applicants that 5000 vacancies were released but applicants were not considered for reengagement, learned counsels for the respondents submit that construction organization is having work charged post, which depends on the financial budget for running the construction work. Out of total 4549 group D posts, only 500 posts were meant for 63 construction organization and the rest were for other departments. In the said advertisement, applications were invited from Ex-Casual labours also, who fulfills the eligibility criteria. The entire process was done in accordance with relevant rules and the same stands completed on this date.
39. Shri L S Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant in OA No. 960 of 2021 argues that the applicant was issued a casual labour card, identity card and his name was also available in live casual register and he was deployed for work as per roaster prepared by the respondents' department. Applicant was paid his wages in the form of hand bill after proper signature on payment register. When the applicant approached the respondents for his engagement, he was not allowed to join on the pretext that he will be called as and when the work arises. Learned counsel submits that the applicant stands helpless without the requisite documents as before going for re- medical examination, all the necessary documents such as I-card, casual labour card etc. of the applicant were deposited on the assurance that when he would be reengaged, the documents would be returned to him. In spite of the fact that the applicant was declared medically fit for employment in A-3 category, he has not been engaged. In this regard, representations afforded by him have not been acceded to in positive and his case stands unaccepted even today. The main reason cited by the respondents while rejecting his representation was that the service particulars of the applicant was not available with them and thus the applicant has never worked with the respondents. This is highly shocking as in their impugned order itself, respondents have admitted that the applicant has worked in the respondents department as per medical certificate issued by the Senior Divisional Medical Officer, North Central Railway, Tundla on 29.10.2004. In view of above submissions, learned counsel prayed that the instant case of the applicant be allowed.
6440. Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 960 of 2021 argues that there is no record available with the respondents which show that the applicant is working as Casual Labour in the respondents' unit. The contention of the applicant regarding his appointment and working in the respondents' department is baseless. The applicant has never enrolled in the office of Senior Section Engineer, P. Way, Aligarh Junction and that his name is not found in any record available with the department and thus, the question of sending the applicant for medical examination does not hold water. Further, the applicant has filed this OA in 2021 however the cause of action arose in the year 2004 which implies that the instant OA is highly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on this very ground itself. Also, the applicant is absolutely wrong in comparing his case with the case of Ramesh Kumar in OA No. 506 of 2007 as in that case, Ramesh Kumar had performed the work of casual labour for the period between 10.09.1980 to 22.09.1983 from time to time but the applicant had not enrolled as Casual Labour nor he had performed his work as Casual Labour.
41. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record
42. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the parties appearing in different cases submitted before the Court copies of several judgments upon which they were relying in support of their case. It would be in the fitness of things to quote the relevant portion of the referred judgments for the sake of reasoning and deciding the case on merits.
43. Learned counsels for the applicants have relied upon the judgment dated 18.04.1985 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Inder Pal Yadav and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) SCC 648. For the sake of clarity, the relevant portion of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
65"5. The Scheme envisages that it would be applicable to casual labour on projects who were in service as on January 1, 1984. The choice of this date does not commend to us, for it is likely to introduce an invidious distinction between similarly situated persons and expose some workmen to arbitrary discrimination flowing from fortuitous court's order. To illustrate, in some matters, the court granted interim stay before the workmen could be retrenched while some other were not so fortunate. Those in respect of whom the court granted interim relief by stay/suspension of the order of retrenchment, they would be treated in service on January 1, 1984 while others who fail to obtain interim relief though similarly situated would be pushed down in the implementation of the Scheme. There is another area where discrimination is likely to rear its ugly head. These workmen come from the lowest grade of railway service. They can ill afford to rush to court. Their Federations have hardly been of any assistance. They had individually to collect money and rush to court which in case of some may be beyond their reach. Therefore, some of the retrenched workmen failed to knock at the doors of the court of justice because these doors do not open unless huge expenses are incurred. Choice in such a situation, even without crystal gazing is between incurring expenses for a litigation with uncertain outcome and hunger from day to day. It is a Hobson's choice. Therefore, those who could not come to the court need not be at a comparative disadvantage to those who rushed in here. If they are otherwise similarly situated, they are entitled to similar treatment, if not by anyone else at the hands of this Court. Burdened by all these relevant considerations and keeping in view all the aspects of the matter, we would modify part 5.1 (a) (i) by modifying the date from January 1, 1984 to January 1, 1981. With this modification and consequent rescheduling in absorption from that date onward, the Scheme framed by Railway Ministry is accepted and a direction is given that it must be implemented by recasting the stages consistent with the change in the date as herein directed.
6. To avoid violation of Article 14, the scientific and equitable way if implementing the scheme is for the Railway administration to prepare, a list of project casual labour with reference to each division of each railway and then start absorbing those with the longest service. If in the process any adjustments are necessary, the same must be done. In giving this direction, we are considerably influenced by the statutory recognition of a principle well known in industrial jurisprudence that the men with 66 longest service shall have priority over those who have joined later on. In other words, the principle of last come first go or to reverse it first come last go as enunciated in Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been accepted. We direct accordingly."
44. In OA No. 127 of 1997 decided on 06.07.2001 by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, it has been held that:
" 8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the matter, the OA is decided with the following directions:
The competent authority in the respondents establishment to examine the individual cases of the applicants and provide employment in accordance with their entitlement, availability of vacancies and the position as per procedure under rules in this regard. Whenever next recruitment is made care be taken that the claim of the applicant is not ignored as against their juniors. In case, any junior to any of the applicant has already been engaged, the seniority be assigned accordingly at the time when the applicants are considered and reengaged."
45. The above quoted order was not complied with by the respondents subsequent to which a contempt petition was preferred by the aggrieved applicants therein. Learned counsels for the applicants have relied upon judgment dated 25.02.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in Contempt Petition No. 05 of 2008 filed in OA No. 127 of 1997. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon portion of the said order is quoted herein below:
"4. Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the opposite parties raised certain legal points about the maintainability of this Contempt Petition. At the out set, it has been argued by learned Senior Advocate that the Contempt Court in the Contempt jurisdiction has got a very limited jurisdiction and has a very limited scope. The Contempt Court, in the Civil Contempt, only will have to ascertain that whether there is any willful disobedience of the Order of the Tribunal. The Contempt Court is not required and is not expected to further enlarge the sphere of the controversy and cannot go beyond the limited scope. It has also been argued that Court while exercising the Contempt jurisdiction cannot 67 assume the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the Court passing the Judgment or the Order. In support of his arguments, learned counsel cited numerous Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:-
(i) J. Parehar Vs. Ganpat Duggar & Others (AIR 1997 SC 113;
(ii) Vijay Singh Secretary Home and another vs. Mittanlal Hindoliva (1997) 1 SCC 258;
(iii) Director, Elementary Education & Others vs. Pradeep Kumar Nayak (1997) 9 SCC 107;
(iv) Prithawi Nath Ram vs. State of Jharkhand & Others; AIR 2004 SC 4277;
(v) Director of Education, Uttranchal & Others vs. Ved Prakash Joshi & Others AIR 2005 SC 3200
(vi) Union of India and others vs. Subedar Devassv PV AIR 2006 SC 909;
(vii) Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others vs. Ram Sevak Yadav and others(2008) 14 SCC 115;
It has also been argued by learned counsel for the opposite parties that the Contempt Court cannot traverse beyond the Order, non- compliance of which has been alleged. It cannot say that what should have not been done or what should have been done. It cannot test the correctness or otherwise the validity of the Order or give additional direction or dealt with any direction, and that the power of review cannot be exercised in a Contempt Petition. We have perused the above Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants cited the Judgment in the case of (2008) 14 SCC 115 Anil Kumar Shahi (2) and others vs. Prof. Ram Sevak Yadav and others. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the Contempt Court while exercising the jurisdiction of the Civil Contempt can also pass consequential orders for enforcement of its original order. But it has been provided that the Court while exercising the Contempt jurisdiction cannot pass any fresh order. In order to ascertain that 68 whether this Court while exercising the jurisdiction of Contempt is going beyond the scope of Contempt Court, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it will be most material to peruse the operative portion of the Judgment passed in O.A. No. 127 of 1997 dated 06.07.2001. The operative portion reads as under:-
"The competent authority in the respondents' establishment to examine the individual cases of the applicants and provide employment in aCCordance with their entitlement, availability of vacancies and the position as per procedure under rules in this regard, whenever next recruitment is made care be taken that the claim of the applicant is not ignored as against their juniors. In case, any junior, to any of the applicant has already been engaged, the seniority be assigned accordingly at the time when the applicants are Considered and reengaged. "
The direction was given by the Tribunal to consider the case of the applicant individually and provide the employment in accordance with their entitlement, availability of vacancies and position as per procedure in this regard. The matter of over age was not considered by the Tribunal at the time of deciding the O.A., which raised at this juncture. The main controversy is that if certain applicants have become over age during this litigation whether this point is to be considered by the respondents or not, or whether the Tribunal can enforce the order ignoring the point of over age and giving a direction that the point of over age may not be considered in the case of the applicants as the applicants during this period were involved in litigation since 1997. We have to consider that whether this point of over age is or can be said traversing beyond the scope of operative portion of the Order of the Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction of Civil Contempt. It has been argued by learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the respondents that the direction was to consider the case of the applicant and the respondents considered the case of the applicants as per direction of the Tribunal and as the applicants are over age at present and hence their claim was not considered or rather the case of the applicants was recommended to the Railway Board for relaxation of age. But learned counsel for the respondents argued that by no stretch of reasoning, this Tribunal while exercising the jurisdiction of Civil Contempt, cannot interpret that whether the Respondents are bound to relax the point of over age and whether this point can be said traversing beyond the scope of the O.A. 69
6. Firstly, it will be most material to state that point of over age was not at all in controversy at the time of deciding the O.A. Needless to say that the Judgment of the Tribunal was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 5341 of 2003. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41897 of 2001. But learned COunsel for the respondents placed reliance on the operative portion of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It will be material to re-produce the operative portion of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, which reads as under:
"We see no justification to interfere with these directions. In case the vacanies are still there or are advertised, and the case of the petitioners is not considered then it is open to the petitioners to file Contempt Petition before the Tribunal."
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Hon'ble High Court also ordered that in case the vacancies are still existing and advertised, and case of the applicants is not considered, then the applicants are at liberty to file the Contempt Petition. Limited options were given by the Hon'ble High Court for moving the Contempt Petition. But it will also be material to state that point of over age was not at all in controversy either before this Tribunal or before the Hon'ble High Court while deciding the Writ Petition. This Tribunal while deciding this Contempt Petition can say that the point of over age is not to be considered while considering the case of the applicants for appointment. And whether it can be said traversing beyond the original order.
7. We have already stated above that the point of Over age was not at all in controversy at the time of passing the Order by the Tribunal and by the Hon'ble High Court hence this is an ancillary point which arises at the time of execution of the Order. In contempt also, the Court will have to see the proper execution of the order which was passed by it. If the respondents considered the case of the applicants not as per directions of the Tribunal, then the Contempt Court cannot be said armless that now the Tribunal cannot pass any order as it will be beyond the scope of the original order or whether the tribunal while exercising the contempt jurisdiction can go into the details that what are the implications which arise afterwards at the time of execution of the order or required to be clarified at the time of exercising the civil contempt jurisdiction, and whether the jurisdiction is restricted only up to the act of the respondents and the respondents are at liberty to say anything in connection with the compliance of the Order of the Tribunal. If the respondents may say that 70 the applicants were not found fit for regularisation or appointment either on the ground of over age or for other disabilities, then the Tribunal will have no option except to admit and accept the contention of the respondents. But it will be the misinterpretation of the powers of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while exercising the powers of Contempt cannot act as mute spectator regarding the action of the respondents but the Tribunal certainly have got jurisdiction to interpret the things, which were not in controversy at the time of passing the original order. It was not an issue that what will be regarding the age of the applicants in case they became over age during the pendency of the litigation. Whether the respondents are empowered to reject the candidature of the applicant on the ground of over age and whether the Tribunal is bound to accept it. The matter of age is a continuing process and it goes on day-to-day or minute- to-minute. If one is within the permissible age at the time of initiation of the litigation, and the litigation continues for numerous years, and the person become over age, then what will be the position in such circumstance? No such law has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents that whether in these circumstances the point of over age will not be looked into while exercising the civil contempt jurisdiction. In certain competitive examinations, the maximum age for eligibility is '35' years for general candidates and in case candidature of a candidate is rejected by the competent authority and he filed a case before the appropriate forum and the litigation continues for a number of years and at the time of filing the litigation, the applicant was below '35' years but, above 34 years, then whether the Court will be armless in giving any relief to such a candidate on the ground that now he has become over age and they have got no jurisdiction to pass a decree in his favour. Same is the case in the present matter. It was not an issue at the time of original litigation that what will be regarding the over age of the applicant whether it will be considered a distinct qualification in case an applicant has become over age or the period consumed during the litigation will not be counted towards over age and in that case applicant shall be considered that whether he was within the permissible age limit at the time of entry in service as casual labour. This point is most material for ensuring the compliance of the Order.
8. The arguments of learned Counsel for the respondents is two fold. Firstly, it has been alleged that the applicants have become over age and their cases were recommended to the Railway Board for relaxation but at the same time it has been argued that the Tribunal in Contempt 71 jurisdiction cannot traverse beyond the scope of Judgment passed in the O.A. Learned COunsel for the respondents in this connection reminded us that how this scheme of regularization came into existence. Learned counsel argued that the scheme of regularisation was framed by the Railway Board vide its letter dated 11.09.1986 based on the Judgment of Indra Pal Yadav's case and in that scheme, the maximum age limit has been provided as 40 years for general, 43 years for OBC, and 45 for SC/ST, and that the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the observation made in Indra Pal Yadav's case in the Judgment of Prahlad Singh but the point of over age was not considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court or under the Scheme framed by the Railway Board. It is a fact that there is a provision in the Scheme regarding maximum age for an employee for regularisation. But, it has not been stated that what will be the position if the litigation continues for a number of years. In the present case, litigation is pending since 1997 and it can safely be stated that if a person was within the age at the time of initial appointment, then certainly he will be over age after more than 13-14 years. What will be the position in case of over age in such circumstances, and whether it can be said that if the Tribunal while exercising the contempt jurisdiction is insisting regarding compliance of the Order of the Tribunal by considering the relaxation of over age, then it can be said that it is further interpreting the original order of the Tribunal. We have already stated above that point of over age was not in controversy at the time of deciding the O.A. by the Tribunal. Moreover, the point of over age was not considered by the Apex Court in the case of Indra Pal Yadav and Prahalad Singh's case. Under these circumstances, we while exercising the jurisdiction of Civil Contempt can certainly interpret that whether the point of over age is to be ignored as it is due to long litigation and it was not in controversy at the time of earlier litigation.
9. It has also been argued by learned counsel for respondents that earlier also these petitioners filed Contempt Petition No.06 of 2008 and it was decided on 09.02.2009. The Contempt Proceedings were dropped and notices were discharged. On this ground, learned counsel for the respondents also argued that now this Tribunal cannot proceed with the present Contempt Petition and the Tribunal cannot further interpret the Order passed originally by the Tribunal. The Judgment passed in earlier Contempt Petition has been filed by learned counsel for the respondents, which is annexure 19 of the.Affidavit. It will be material to state that under what circumstances, the Contempt Proceedings were dropped.
72"Having regard to the statement made by the respondents that the case of the applicants is under consideration, cannot be accepted. However, as regards the delay in considering the case of the applicants by the respondents, we thought it just and proper to direct the respondents to complete the process, considering the case of the applicants, within reasonable time. "
Considering the undertaking of the opposite parties, at that time, the Contempt Proceedings were dropped. Undertaking was given by the respondents that the case of the petitioners is under consideration and believing this undertaking of the opposite parties, the Tribunal dropped the Contempt Proceedings but it cannot be said that now we cannot proceed further. These contempt proceedings are perfectly maintainable No benefit can be given to the respondents of the earlier contempt proceedings as undertaking was furnished by the opposite parties at the time of earlier Contempt Petition, hence believing the undertaking as genuine, the contempt proceedings were dropped but the now the opposite parties are alleging different things and they have come with different theory and such a bulky Misc. Application has been filed in order to burden the record.
10. It is also a matter of consideration that if certain period was consumed during litigation then what will be the effect and impact of the period consumed during litigation in service matters. Learned counsel for the respondents rightly argued that the doctrine of lis pendis has come from the Section 52 of Transfer of Property Act and that this maxim of lis pendis is not relevant in the service matter or other matters, other than the civil matter. Learned counsel for the respondents conceded that the maxim of lis pendis is relevant in the civil litigation but what will be the effect of lis pendis in the case of service matter, is to be seen. No law has been cited by the learned counsel for the respondents that the principle of lis pendis is restricted only regarding the cases of civil litigation and cannot be used in context of other litigation like service. Because in the service matters the point of age is most relevant. The point of time is relevant in the service matter even more than the civil litigation. In civil litigation whatever the period has been consumed in litigation and loss caused to the either party during the pendency of litigation, can be compensated in the final Judgment but the same principle will not be correctly applicable in the service matters because the age is a continuing process and it will go on day by day and minute by minute. Hence, the maxim of lis pendis is 73 most relevant in the service matter also and no Such law has been cited before us which prohibits this doctrine of lis pendis in service matters. We disagree with the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that principle of lis pendis is relevant only in civil matters and cannot be applied in other matters especially in service matters. We are of the opinion that in service matters, this maxim is most relevant. It is a known fact that in litigation, one of the parties remain indifferent in disposal of the case, and in the present case, the respondents cannot escape from this blame of delaying the matter due to litigation.
11. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the applicants that in the case of Indra Pal Yadav, there is no mention of the age although the Scheme was framed with the approval of the Hon'ble Apex Court. But, the policy was framed by the respondents in violation of the Orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
12. It has also been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that there are different units in the Railway and an employee is to be regularized in that unit only. But, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that entire railway is one department, and it cannot be sub divided in units, and in case there is no vacancy in one unit, then petitioners can be accommodated in other unit as the railway is one department. We agree with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners although learned counsel for the opposite parties vehemently disputed this fact. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that at the time of dismissal of first Contempt Petition, it was alleged on behalf of the opposite parties that there were no vacancy with them, and on the availability of vacancies, petitioners can be accommodated. It is surprising that all of a sudden more than 4500 vacancies came into existence. So many posts cannot fall vacant in one day. The opposite parties knowingly and intentionally in order to deprive off the petitioners allowed to accumulate so much posts. Much has been argued on behalf of the opposite parties that there is no ground for proceeding with the Contempt Petition and as the petitioners are over age and the opposite parties considered the case of the petitioners, and they were not found fit for re-employment or regularisation on the ground of over age hence the Contempt Petition deserves to be dismissed. But, we disagree with the arguments of learned counsel for the opposite parties. At the time of initiation of litigation, the petitioners were within the age limit and it is due to the prolonged litigation that the petitioners have became over age 74 hence, the opposite parties must relax the upper age limit in the case of the petitioners.
13. For the reasons mentioned above, we are of the opinion that there is no justification for us to drop the Contempt Proceedings. There are sufficient reasons for us to proceed with the Contempt Proceedings and as the Opposite parties had disobeyed the Order of the Tribunal and they are creating impediments in compliance of the Order hence, they may be said guilty for committing Contempt of Court.
14. In view of the above, Misc. Application moved on behalf of opposite parties in order to drop the proceedings of Contempt and discharge of notice is liable to be rejected, and the same is rejected.
15. We have decided above that the Contempt Proceedings are perfectly maintainable, and so the called compliance made by the opposite parties cannot be said compliance of the Order of the Tribunal in letter and spirit. They have only alleged that the petitioners are over age hence their cases cannot be considered on this ground. But, we have decided that there is no substance in this argument of learned counsel for the opposite parties hence, the Contempt Proceedings shall proceed."
46. Learned counsels for the applicants also rely on the respondents' letter dated 30/31.07.2009 issued by the General Manager to the Secretary (Establishment), Railway Board regarding screening of ex casual labours in the N.E. Railway. For the sake of clarity, the letter has been reproduced herein below:
75 76 77 7847. Learned counsels for the applicants have relied upon a judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed by Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 75 of 2013 claiming that in that 79 case, the Tribunal has held respondents responsible for not absorbing an employee in the department who was similarly placed as applicants in the instant case. For the sake of clarity, operative portion of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
" 18. This is a case of an obvious mistake / negligence which would be evident from legal & factual scenario of the case. It is trite to say that benefit of judicial pronouncement has to be extended to all other similar situated candidate but in instant case it is evident that though this decision of respondents fixing maximum age limit of 40 years, as has been fixed by Railway Board's letter dated 20.09.2001, has been held as arbitrary and non-tenable in various OA before this Patna Bench of CAT as well before coordinate Bench at Allahabad and said orders of Tribunal had attained finality in spite of that benefit of those judicial pronouncement was not extended to the applicant. The respondents ought to have given benefit of judicial decision to all other similar situated ex-casual labourers but it appears that arbitrarily benefit of judicial decision was extended to only few ex-casual labours for absorption and some others were deprived.
19. The fact of the respondent arbitrarily giving benefit of judicial decision in absorbing of some ex-casual labours and depriving some other were deprived is making an obvious error and is not as simple as it is made out to be. There are several factors which cast a shadow of doubt over the alleged error committed bonafidely.
20. The facts situation emerged indicate that the respondent have not disclosed the reason of declaring unfit in screening not only when result was declared but also at the time providing information under RTI Act and the reason was disclosed only in WS. It is inconceivable that respondents were not aware that benefit of judicial pronouncement has to be extended to all other similar situated candidate.
21. Such obvious mistake, which cannot be treated as a bona fide mistake and absence of exercise of due care & diligence needs to be restrained by grant of compensation to the applicant. During hearing of the contempt petition relating to non-compliance of order passed in OA No.1029/2012, some ex-casual labours in whose case judicial direction for their absorption was not complied with and who 80 have attained the age of superannuation, respondents themselves have granted compensation. The respondents thus need to be put on terms in instant case. This Tribunal hence is of the view that the respondent's must be made to compensate for the act.
22. Because of the fault of the respondents applicant could not be absorbed in group D post in year 2010, had he been absorbed in year 2010, he would get salary till his superannuation in year 2017 and would also get some gratuity and other retiral benefit as well but in the present context the action of the respondent's, their 'mistake', which was not a bona fide mistake or an error simplicities is illustrating absence of exercise of due care & due diligence which has resulted in depriving of the applicant of his absorption to Group D post and resultantly deprived him of salary for the period from year 2010 to year 2017 as well retiral benefit. It is true Applicant might have earned some money during this period in between 2010 to 2017 also but definitely that would be less than the amount of payable salary and retiral benefit.
23. Taking note of entirety, we quantify the amount of compensation as Rs. Five lakhs and thus respondents are directed to compensate the applicant, for their act of non absorption of applicant in group D post in year 2010 on untenable ground; and to pay him Rs.5,00,000/- ( Rs. Five lacs only) within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Applicant shall furnish details of his Bank Account etc to the respondents within two weeks so that respondents may credit the amount directed in his bank account."
48. To substantiate their argument that age relaxation is liable to be granted by the respondents' department in case the applicants who seek absorption have become overage, learned counsels for the applicants have relied upon the judgment dated 08.05.1987 of the Apex Court passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 8460 and 804 of 1987 titled R.K. Rama Rao and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon portion of the said judgment is quoted herein below:
81"What is important to be noted here is that at that stage there was no prescription of any age limit and nobody even hinted at any maximum age limit in the case of these erstwhile Village Officers. On the other hand, the assurance was assumed to be as in the Tamil Nadu case that all those erstwhile Village Officers found eligible and suitable would be appointed irrespective of their age.
The Amended rules while providing for the absorption of the erstwhile Village Officers as Village Assistants make it necessary that they should possess not only the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, but also the age qualification, the maximum age being 34 years. The requirement regarding age would eliminate most of the erstwhile Part- time Village Officers. Writ petitions were once again filed challenging the requirement regarding age as being in breach of the undertaking given to the Supreme Court. This time instead of holding that according to the undertaking all the erstwhile Village Officers who had not attained the age of superannuation and who possessed the educational qualification and were otherwise suitable were to be absorbed in the post of Village Assistants, the High Court held that the undertaking was subject to the age qualification but it was necessary to give relaxation up to 5 years in regard to the maximum age limit. The High Court observed that this was what they had in mind when they give their earlier judgment. We do not think that we can uphold the view of the High Court in the light of the assurance given before the Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy's case (A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 724) (supra). At the time of the hearing before the Supreme Court in Venkata Reddy's case (supra), no age qualification had been prescribed. If the undertaking was required to be subject to the maximum age limit prescribed for direct recruits under the ad hoc Rules, it would practically eliminate all the erstwhile Village Officers. We do not think that the Government should be allowed to get round the undertaking give at that time by purporting to prescribe a maximum age limit which would have the effect of eliminating the majority of the erstwhile Village Officers. We have, therefore, no option but to allow the appeals and direct the respondents to absorb as Village Assistants all erstwhile Part-time Village Officers who have not attained the age of 58 years if they possess the minimum educational qualification and are otherwise suitable for appointment, irrespective of their age."
49. To substantiate their arguments regarding extending of judicial decisions in matters of a general nature to all similarly placed 82 employees, learned counsels for the applicants have also relied upon paragraph 126.5 of the Report of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (Volume III). For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraph is quoted herein below:
" We have observed that frequently, in cases of service litigation involving many similarly placed employees, the benefit of judgment is only extended to those employees who had agitated the matter before the Tribunal / Court. This generates a lot of needless litigation. It also runs contrary to the judgment given by the Full Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in the case of C.S. Elias Ahmed and Others Vs. UOI and Others (O.A. Nos. 451 and 541 of 1991), wherein it was held that the entire class of employees who are similarly situated are required to be given the benefit of the decision whether or not they were parties to the original writ. Incidentally, this principle has been upheld by the Supreme Court in this case as well as in numerous other judgements like G.C. Ghosh vs UOI, (1992) 19 ATC 94 (SC) dated 20.07.1998; K.I. Shepherd vs UOI, (JT 1987 (3) SC 600), Abid Hussain vs UOI (JT 1987 (1) SC 147) etc.. Accordingly, we recommend that decisions taken in one specific case either by the judiciary or the Govt. should be applied to all other identical cases without forcing the other employees to approach the court of law for an identical remedy or relief. We clarify that this decision will apply only in cases where a principle or common issue of general nature applicable to a group or category of government employees is concerned and not to matters relating to a specific grievance or anomaly of an individual employee."
50. Learned counsels for the applicants have also relied upon Section 25G and Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 claiming that the applicants were not retrenched in accordance with the statutory provisions prescribed in the above said Act. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraphs are quoted herein below:
"25G. Procedure for retrenchment - Where any workman in an industrial establishment, who is a citizen of India, is to be retrenched and he belongs to a particular category of workmen in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement between the employer and the workman in this behalf, the employer shall ordinarily retrench the workman who was the last 83 person to be employed in that category, unless for reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman.
25H. Re-employment of retrenched workmen - Where any workmen are retrenched, and the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed, given an opportunity [to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re-employment and such retrenched workman] who offer themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons."
51. To substantiate their claim that ex-casual labours were supposed to be given relaxation regarding their age, learned counsels for the applicants refer to the paragraph (III) (b) of para 2006 of the Indian Railway Establishment Vol. II edition 1989. For the sake of clarity, the referred paragraph is quoted herein below:
"2006. Absorption of Casual Labour in regular vacancies -
(iii) As long as it is established that a casual labour has been enrolled within the prescribed age limit, relaxation in upper age limit at the time of actual absorption should be automatic and guided by this factor. In old cases where the age limit was not observed, relaxation of age should be considered sympathetically. The DRM's may exercise such powers to grant relaxation in age limit."
52. Learned counsels for the applicants also claimed that by not reengaging the ex-casual labours, respondens have defied their own circular letter No. E(NG)-ii-77/CL/46 dated 08.06.1981 which clearly lays down that existing casual labours will be preferred over outsiders during the process of reengagement. For the sake of clarity, the relevant relied upon paragraph is quoted herein below:
"No outsider should be appointed to Class - IV post which became available up to 31-12-1987 and also such post should be filled only from among casual laborer and substitutes."
With regard to age relaxation, para F (VII) is liable to be quoted:
84"As long as it is established that a casual labourers has been enrolled within the age limit relaxation at the time of actual absorption should be automatic and guided by this factor."
53. Learned counsels for the applicants have also alleged that in their act of not reengaging the applicants, respondents have defied their own Circular R.B.E. No. 17/2003 issued on 17.01.2003 wherein it was stated that any appointment by way of fresh recruitment can be resorted only after the casual labourers enrolled in the live casual register are completely exhausted. For the sake of clarity, relied upon paragraph is quoted herein below:
"2. Pursuant to a demand raised in PREM meeting by the Staff side. The matter has since been reviewed by the Board and it has been decided that the Railways need not take prior approval of the Board while placing indents before the RRBs. However, before resorting to open market recruitment it should be ensured that the following conditions are fulfilled:
(i) The recruitment should have the personal approval of the General Manager;
(ii) Such recruitment should be resorted to only after exhausint the possibility of absorbing:
(a) Surplus staff available for redeployment;
(b) Casual Labour on Roll;
(c) Ex-Casual Labour on Live Registers and Supplementary Live
Registers;"
54. Specifically regarding case OA No. 232 of 2008, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a judgment dated 24.08.2012 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench in OA No. 793 of 2007 claiming that on the ground of delay and latches alone, applicants' claim is liable to be rejected. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraphs have been quoted herein below:
" 17. It is further been seen from the pleadings that the Respondents undertook repeated exercises for absorption of the ex-causal labour as per their seniority. The first such exercise was undertaken in the year 1992 85 and subsequently 1996 as well as 2004. In fact with a view to offer opportunity to the ex casual labour on the Live Register for their absorption, as per the averments of the respondents, they formulated a scheme in September, 1996. Under this scheme 1357 casual labour, who were on the roll, were absorbed against group 'D' post in the construction organization. Having regard to this position, it is easy to see that the applicants singularly failed to avail the opportunities offered to them by the respondents and, therefore were evidently negligent in claiming their rights within a reasonable time.
18. In view of the facts of the case and ratio of the above judgments, we are satisfied that the applicant have failed to provide plausible reason on the question of delay. Accordingly, OA is dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. No costs."
55. Substantiating their arguments on delay occurred in filing the present applications, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the judgment dated 17.10.2014 of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal No. 9849 of 2014 titled State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. For the sake of clarity, the operative portion of the judgment is quoted herein below:
"23) The legal principles which emerge from the reading of the aforesaid judgments, cited both by the appellants as well as the respondents, can be summed up as under:
(1) Normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by the Court, all other identically situated persons need to be treated alike by extending that benefit. Not doing so would amount to discrimination and would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This principle needs to be applied in service matters more emphatically as the service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all similarly situated persons should be treated similarly. Therefore, the normal rule would be that merely because other similarly situated persons did not approach the Court earlier, they are not to be treated differently.86
(2) However, this principle is subject to well recognized exceptions in the form of laches and delays as well as acquiescence. Those persons who did not challenge the wrongful action in their cases and acquiesced into the same and woke up after long delay only because of the reason that their counterparts who had approached the Court earlier in time succeeded in their efforts, then such employees cannot claim that the benefit of the judgment rendered in the case of similarly situated persons be extended to them. They would be treated as fence-sitters and laches and delays, and/or the acquiescence, would be a valid ground to dismiss their claim.
(3) However, this exception may not apply in those cases where the judgment pronounced by the Court was judgment in rem with intention to give benefit to all similarly situated persons, whether they approached the Court or not. With such a pronouncement the obligation is cast upon the authorities to itself extend the benefit thereof to all similarly situated person. Such a situation can occur when the subject matter of the decision touches upon the policy matters, like scheme of regularisation and the like (see K.C. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, if the judgment of the Court was in personam holding that benefit of the said judgment shall accrue to the parties before the Court and such an intention is stated expressly in the judgment or it can be impliedly found out from the tenor and language of the judgment, those who want to get the benefit of the said judgment extended to them shall have to satisfy that their petition does not suffer from either laches and delays or acquiescence.
24) Viewed from this angle, in the present case, we find that the selection process took place in the year 1986. Appointment orders were issued in the year 1987, but were also cancelled vide orders dated June 22, 1987.
The respondents before us did not chalelnge these cancelleation orders till the year 1996, i.e. for a period of 9 years. It means that they had accepted the cancellation of their appointments. They woke up in the year 1996 only after finding that some other persons whose appointment orders were also cancelled got the relief. By that time, nine years had passed. The earlier judgment had granted the relief to the parties before the Court. It would also be pertinent to highlight that these respondents have not joined the service nor working like the employees who succeeded in earlier case before the Tribunal. As of today, 27 years have passed after the issuance 87 of cancellation orders. Therefore, not only there was unexplained delay and laches in filing the claim petition after period of 9 years, it would be totally unjust to direct the appointment to give them the appointment as of today, i.e. after a period of 27 years when most of these respondents would be almost 50 years of age or above."
56. To substantiate their claim that engagement of the casual labours some time in past does not confer them any right of seeking a mandamus for relaxation of age limit, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance upon the observations recorded in judgment dated 06.07.2011 of the Apex Court passed in Civil Appeal Nos. 4990-91 of 2011 titled Union of India & Anr. Vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon portion is quoted herein below:
"14.We may now advert to the second limb of the question in para 11 (supra). The issue need not detain us for long as in our view the factual position as obtaining in the present case does not fit in with the fact situation in the case of Nagendra Chandra (supra). In the instant case, indubitably, the respondents were engaged as part time contingent casual labourers in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise for doing all types of work as may be assigned to them by the office. Their part time engagement was need based for which they were to be paid on hourly basis. Though their stand is that many a times they were required to work day and night but it is nowhere stated that they were recruited or ever discharged the duties of a 'sepoy' for which recruitment process was initiated vide public notice dated 14th January 2008 and the Tribunal as also the High Court has directed the appellants to grant relaxation in age limit over and above what is stipulated in the recruitment rules/advertisement. In view of the stated factual scenario, in our opinion, the engagement of the respondents as casual labourers even for considerable long duration did not confer any legal right on them for seeking a mandamus for relaxation of age limit. We have no hesitation in holding that Nagendra Chandra's case (supra) has no application on facts in hand and the impugned direction by the Tribunal, as affirmed by the High Court based on the said decision, was clearly unwarranted.88
57. To substantiate their argument that process of regularization can only be done in accordance with the prescribed procedure as has been framed by the department and that it leaves very little scope for judicial interference, learned counsel for the respondents have relied upon the observations recorded in judgment dated 31.01.1996 of the Apex Court in the case of Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. & Ors Vs. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao reported in 1996 (7) SCC. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon portion is quoted herein below:
"We are unable to endorse the direction given by the High Court regarding regularisation of the respondents medical officers with effect from April 1, 1986. The process of regularisation involves regular appointment which can be done only in accordance with the prescribed procedure. Having regard to the rules which have been made by the appellant-corporation, regular appointment on the post of medical officer can only be made after the duly constituted Selection Committee has found the person suitable for such appointment. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao, though he had been working since 1976, was considered by the selection Committee for regular appointment in the year 1981 and was not found suitable for such regular appointment. Dr. J. Sanjeeva Kumar and Dr. S. Prasada Rao were never considered by the Selection Committee for regular appointment. The fact that no regular selection has been made after their appointment on ad hoc basis does not mean that they are entitled to be regularised with effect from April 1, 1986. In view of the Rules prescribed by the appellant-corporation, regularisation of the respondent medical officers on the post of medical officer can be made only after they are considered and found suitable for such appointment by a duly constituted Selection Committee. As a result of the direction for regularisation given by the High Court, the requirement in the Rules regarding selection by a Selection Committee for the purpose of regular appointment on the post of medical officer has been dispensed with. This, in our opinion, was impermissible."
58. To substantiate their arguments that regularization is not a mode of recruitment and that it is a policy decision strictly to be decided in accordance with the Rules as have been prescribed by the department concerned, learned counsel for the respondents have relied 89 upon the observations recorded in the judgment dated 26.04.2007 of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 2167 of 2007 titled State of Orissa & Ors. Vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraph is quoted herein below:
"19. Regularisation as is well known is not a mode of recruitment. A policy decision to absorb a person who is not in employment of the State without following the recruitment rules, would not confer any legal right on him. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others v Umadevi (3) and Others [(2006) 4 SCC 1], categorically held that any appointment made in violation of the constitutional provisions would be a nullity."
59. To substantiate their arguments that regularization is not a right and that scope of Article 21 and 39(a) of the Constitution of India should neither be misinterpreted nor be misused, learned counsels for the respondents have relied upon a judgment dated 10.04.2006 of the Apex Court passed in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors reported in 2006 (4) SCC. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraphs are quoted herein below:
"39. It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed, under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, are violated. It is stated that the State has treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work. The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the concerned department on a wage that was made known to them. There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment, even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no 90 fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating unequals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled.
42. The argument that the right to life protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India would include the right to employment cannot also be accepted at this juncture. The law is dynamic and our Constitution is a living document. May be at some future point of time, the right to employment can also be brought in under the concept of right to life or even included as a fundamental right. The new statute is perhaps a beginning. As things now stand, the acceptance of such a plea at the instance of the employees before us would lead to the consequence of depriving a large number of other aspirants of an opportunity to compete for the post or employment. Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door. The obligation cast on the State under Article 39(a) of the Constitution of India is to ensure that all citizens equally have the right to adequate means of livelihood. It will be more consistent with that policy if the courts recognize that an appointment to a post in government service or in the service of its instrumentalities, can only be by way of a proper selection in the manner recognized by the relevant legislation in the context of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. In the name of individualizing justice, it is also not possible to shut our eyes to the constitutional scheme and the right of the numerous as against the few who are before the court. The Directive Principles of State Policy have also to be reconciled with the rights available to the citizen under Part III of the Constitution and the obligation of the State to one and all and not to a particular group of citizens. We, therefore, overrule the argument based on Article 21 of the Constitution."91
60. To substantiate their claim that Tribunal has got very little scope to interfere in department's policy decisions pertaining to recruitment / absorption / regularization and that government should be left with the responsibility of taking decisions in above cases in accordance with rules, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment dated 05.05.1998 of the Apex Court in Case No. 793 of 1993 titled Government of Orissa Versus Hanichal Roy. For the sake of clarity, the relied upon paragraph is quoted herein below:
"(3) THE Rule requires the government to form the opinion, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisios of the Rules in public interest in respect of any class or category of persons. We assume for the purposes of this appeal that the case of the respondents herein falls within a "class or category or persons", but we do not think that the tribunal was right in, in effect, relaxing the appropriate rule itself. Having set out the facts, it should have left it to the government to take the decision under the rule."
61. To substantiate their argument that no relief of relaxation of age cannot be acceded to and that report of screening committee should be considered as inviolable in this regard, learned counsels for the respondents have placed reliance upon the judgment dated 04.02.2016 of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in case Writ Petition No. 1006 of 2016 titled Union of India and others Vs. Ashok Kumar and others. For the sake of clarity, the operative portion of the above judgment is quoted herein below:
"As per the Railway Board's letters dated 28.02.2001 and 20.09.2001, the age relaxation to the extent of service put in as Casual Labour/ Substitute, subject to upper age limit of 40 years in case of General Candidates and 45 years in the case of SC/ST candidates not being exceeded, may also be granted in the case of Casual Labour & Substitutes for recruitment against Group-C & Group-D posts. The OBC candidates will also get age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 43 years, as has been granted to the serving OBC employees vide Rly. Board's letter No.E (NG) II/95/pmI/1 dated 1.6.1999 and which clearly provides that excasual labour, which 92 becomes eligible as a result of above modification will be considered for absorption with prospective effect.
On the directives issued by this Court, the department/petitioners has come up with clear stand that in the past no post facto age relaxation had ever been accorded in favour of casual labours beyond the age prescribed by the aforesaid Rules. In this context, they have also relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.21799 of 2006, mentioned above.
Once this is the categorical stand, then the Tribunal has definitely proceeded on the wrong premise with the finding that some persons were accorded age relaxation and regularisation in 2010. From the perusal of the details regarding the age of the contesting respondents, this much is reflected that all have crossed 50 years and consequently in the light of the Railway Board's Letter dated 28.2.2001 and 20.9.2001, no positive directions can be issued in their favour. Moreover, the regularisation can never be claimed as a matter of right as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Vindon T v. University of Calicut, 2002 (4) SCC 726 and Mahendra L. Jain & Ors. v. Indore Development Authority & Ors., (2005) 1 SCC 639. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Government of Orissa & Anr. v. Hanichail Roy & Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 626 has considered the case, where the High Court had granted the relaxation of service conditions. The Apex Court held that the Court cannot take upon itself the task of the statutory authority. The same view has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Se cretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (Supra).
It is relevant to indicate that in Writ Petition No.21799 of 2006 (Union of India & Ors. v. Ajai Kumar & Ors.), a review application was filed by Shri Ajai Kumar and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 3.12.2011 had proceeded to dismiss the review application holding that where the Rules provide for maximum relaxation of eligibility including the age, the Courts do not ordinarily issue directions to exercise discretion to go beyond that maximum limit. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Uma Devi (Supra) had proceeded to observe that there cannot be recruitment to the regular posts dehorse the recruitment rules and therefore the applicant cannot claim that he is entitled for regularisation.
93The Court also finds substance in the contention of the petitioners that under Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, which has been framed by His Excellency the President of India under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and has got statutory force, the General Manager has been provided rule making authority for the condition of service of the Group 'C' and 'D' Employees, thus the instructions issued by the Railway Board regarding absorption, recruitment and promotion in respect of Group 'D' employees have got statutory force. The same has also been upheld by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.S. Vadera v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 118, the relevant part of which is extracted below:-
"The Indian Railway Establishment Code has been issued, by the President, in the exercise of his powers," under the proviso to Art.
309. Under Rule 157 the, President has directed the Railway Board, to make rules, of general application to non-gazetted railway servants, under their control. The rules, which are embodied in the Schemes, framed by the Board, under Annexures 4 and 7, are within the powers, conferred under Rule 157; and, in the absence of any Act, having been passed by the 'appropriate' Legislature, on the said matter, the rules, framed by the Railway Board, will have full effect and, if so indicated, retrospectively also. Such indication, about retrospective effect, as has already been pointed out by us, is clearly there, in the impugned provisions."
In view of above, the Court is of the considered opinion that Railway Board being the competent authority has issued various instructions time to time in respect of service conditions of Group 'D' and Group 'C' staffs, in continuation of the same the matter of age relaxation in respect of Ex- Casual Labourers and working Casual labour was considered and number of Railway Board letters has been issued for granting age relaxation as well as regarding eligibility criteria. As per the Railway Board Circular dated 28.2.2001 in continuation of the Railway Board's letter dated 25.7.1991, age relaxation was further fixed as upper age limit of 40 years in case of General candidates; 45 years in case of SC/ST and 43 years in case of OBC and the same has also been granted in case of Casual/ substitute Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts. As such the ExCasual Labours are entitled to be considered in the light of the aforesaid Railway Board Letters and the incumbents' claims are liable to be considered for absorption with prospective effect. The Railway Board is rule making 94 authority for Group 'C' and 'D' employees in view of Rule 157 of the Railway Establishment Code, Volume-I, thus, above instructions, which have been issued for absorption/ regularisation of ex-causal labours/ Group 'D' employees and once the Hon'ble Apex Court in series of judgments had categorically held that Railway Board has got rule making authority, then the same has statutory force and having binding effect.
Consequently, we are of the opinion that the contesting respondents are over age and as such no positive directives can be issued by the Tribunal for absorption under the existing Rules. Once the report of Screening Committee has already been brought on record through supplementary affidavit, whereby all the contesting respondents have failed and relying on the judgment passed by this Court in Ajai Kumar (Supra), we are of the considered opinion that the directions issued by the Tribunal are in futility and issuance of such direction is not permissible in law and as such the contesting respondents are not entitled for any relief. The direction issued by the Tribunal is in contravention of the scheme framed by the petitioners and the Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal cannot pass such an order, which is impermissible in law.
In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 06.11.2015 is quashed and set aside."
62. Learned counsels for the respondents further submit that in accordance with the law laid down in Uma Devi case (supra), the Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal had refused to grant a similar relief to the applicant therein in O.A. No. 423 of 2012 titled Amin Khan Mansoori Vs. Union of India and others decided on 16.01.2023. For the sake of clarity, the operative portion of the judgment is quoted herein below:
"12. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussion and in view of the judgmetns of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi (supra) and Satya Prakas and others Vs. State of Bihar (supra), when law is now well settled that casual labour has no right to seek regularization, court is of the opinion that applicant's plea is not liable to be accepted."95
Similar view was taken by the Allahabad Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in the judgment dated 12.01.2019 passed in OA No. 818 of 2010 titled Tribhuwan and others Vs. Union of India and others. For the sake of clarity, operative portion of the judgment is quoted herein below:
"13. The applicant has failed to show that the decision of the respondents to declare the applicant unsuitable in the screening test is in violation of the rules and instructions of the Railway Board.
14. In view of the above, since the applicant has failed to demonstrate any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the respondents for their regularization. Consequently, the applicant being over age, no direction can be issued by this Tribunal for absorption of 10 the applicant in Group 'D' posts under the existing Rules. This Tribunal cannot pass an order for relaxing the age of applicant beyond the limit set by the Railway Board and any such relaxation would be impermissible in law.
15. Reference may also be made to Union of India Vs. Arulmozhi, (2011) 7 S.C.C. 397, wherein it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that:
"........the Tribunal as also the High Court has directed the appellants to grant relaxation in age-limit over and above what is stipulated in the recruitment rules/advertisement. In view of the state factual scenario, in our opinion, the engagement of the respondents as casual labourers even for a considerably long duration did not confer any legal right on them for seeking a mandamus for relaxation of age-limit".
63. Further, for the sake of ease in reasoning and analysis, names of all the applicants in all the instant original applications are enlisted herein below along with the respective dates on which they were engage and screened later. The chart has been prepared in accordance with the information given in the respective OAs:
96S.N Name of O.A. D/o initial Whether 120 D/o D/o Whether applicant No. enagement days service screening Screening screening completed result result challenged 1 Jagdish 18.11.1980 Yes 14.05.2008 23.03.2010 Not challenged 2 Ram Vilas 29.10.1979 Yes 06.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 3 Parasu Ram 18.02.1981 Yes 20.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 4 Harihar O.A. 21.01.1981 Yes 13.08.2008 25.03.2010 Not No. challenged 5 Vanshu 31/201 10.01.1981 Yes 12.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not 9 challenged 6 Ram Das 30.01.1981 Yes 09.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 7 Buddhi 18.02.1981 Yes 24.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Ram challenged 8 Munni Lal 16.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 9 Balkeshwar 26.09.1980 Yes 26.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Sharma challenged 10 Jai Prakash 28.02.1981 Yes 08.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Dubey challenged 11 Gopi Chand 12.01.1981 Yes 16.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Sharma challenged 12 Amar Nath 25.09.1980 Yes 26.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 13 Deena Nath O.A. 16.01.1981 Yes 21.7.2008 25.03.2010 Not No. challenged 14 Hari Ram 13/201 28.01.1981 Yes 06.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not 9 challenged 15 Subhash 01.01.1981 Yes 10.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Chandra challenged 16 Raja Ram 22.01.1981 Yes 19.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Yadav challenged 17 Innar 24.09.1980 Yes 11.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Yadav challenged 18 Abhay Nath 16.01.1980 Yes 12.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Singh challenged 97 19 Abhimanyu 30.09.1980 Yes 12.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 20 Harihar 18.01.1981 Yes 04.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 21 Kailash 18.01.1981 Yes 30.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 22 Vinod 16.02.1981 Yes 30.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Kumar challenged Singh 23 Devendar 21.08.1980 Yes 15.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 24 Singhasan 17.01.1974 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Mahto challenged 25 Raj 01.01.1980 Yes 08.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Narayan challenged Yadav 26 Sukhlal Rai 02.04.1963 Yes 07.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 27 Lal Bihari 17.07.1980 Yes 12.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 28 Krishna 03.11.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Bhagat challenged 29 Chura Man 26.02.1981 Yes 09.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 30 Dharichar 18.06.1976 Yes 21.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Mahto challenged 31 Bhagwan 01.01.1980 Yes 07.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 32 Raj Kumar 10.11.1980 Yes 28.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not O.A. Mahto challenged No. 33 Lal Mohan 52/201 10.11.1980 Yes 22.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Giri 9 challenged 34 Mustafa 01.01.1980 Yes 07.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Miya challenged 35 Kashi Nath 16.07.1977 Yes 28.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 36 Murli Rai 18.07.1980 Yes 14.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 37 Suresh Rai 23.07.1980 Yes 15.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not 98 challenged 38 Awadesh 18.07.1980 Yes 14.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 39 Rajendra 23.07.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 40 Surender 24.02.1981 Yes 03.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 41 Ram Nath 16.02.1981 Yes 23.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 42 Kamal 16.12.1980 Yes 03.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Thakur challenged 43 Chhote Lal 02.03.1981 Yes 09.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Ram challenged 44 Shri Kant 17.12.1980 Yes 12.08.2008 25.03.2010 Not Sharma challenged 45 Laxman 16.02.1981 Yes 23.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 46 Ram 06.03.1981 Yes 10.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Suresh challenged 47 Harish O.A. 31.01.1981 Yes 08.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Chand No. challenged 69/201 9 48 Ram Dhani 01.02.1981 Yes 02.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 49 Jhagaru 21.01.1981 Yes 05.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 50 Daya Nand 21.02.1981 Yes 02.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Maurya challenged 51 Deena 18.02.1981 Yes 02.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Nath Mali challenged 52 Bechan 27.02.1981 Yes 04.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Gaur challenged 53 Ram 16.01.1981 Yes 29.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Charan challenged 54 Sattar 03.02.1981 Yes 20.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 99 55 Gama 20.02.1981 Yes 27.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Yadav challenged 56 Barkhu O.A. 20.02.1981 Yes 30.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not No. challenged 57 Rajendra 329/20 20.02.1981 Yes 30.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad 19 challenged Gupta 58 Chhote Lal 18.02.1981 Yes 11.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 59 Ram Daras 02.03.1981 Yes 09.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Maurya challenged 60 Ram Vansh 16.03.1975 Yes 15.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 61 Dineshwar 16.02.1981 Yes 23.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad Rai challenged 62 Girdhari 06.03.1981 Yes 10.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 63 Shakti 01.01.1981 Yes 04.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Nath challenged Tiwari 64 Ram Surat 10.01.1981 Yes 19.08.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 65 Subhash 20.02.1981 Yes 26.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 66 Rajendra 12.01.1981 Yes 16.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 67 Laxmi 14.01.1981 Yes 16.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 68 Ramjeet 16.01.1989 Yes 17.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 69 Adalat 21.02.1981 Yes 26.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 70 Nirmal 01.10.1980 Yes 26.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 71 Suresh 18.01.1981 Yes 02.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Kumar challenged Gupta 72 Virendra 31.09.1989 Yes 10.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Nath challenged 100 Pandey 73 Brij Bihari 21.01.1981 Yes 12.08.2008 25.03.2010 Not Yadav challenged 74 Parasuram 18.02.1981 Yes 20.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not O.A. challenged 75 Prem No. 21.01.1981 Yes 12.08.2008 25.03.2010 Not Narayan 726/20 challenged 19 Shukla 76 Ramdev 28.02.1981 Yes 07.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not Mahto challenged 77 Abdul 15.02.1981 Yes 24.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Sahid challenged 78 Mohd. 16.02.1981 Yes 23.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Wasi Ullah challenged 79 Ram Ji 06.01.1981 Yes 13.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Pandit challenged 80 Shanker 31.03.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 81 Shatrughan O.A. 31.08.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not Sharma No. challenged 82 Ram Jeet 1143/2 23.01.1981 Yes 04.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not 019 challenged 83 Vakil 20.02.1981 Yes 25.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not Mahto challenged 84 Tribhuwan 20.02.1981 Yes 25.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 85 Mithai 07.03.1981 Yes 29.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 86 Ram Murat 24.01.1981 Yes 17.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 87 Ram Kesh O.A. 09.01.1981 Yes 17.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not No. challenged 88 Ramdhani 330/20 21.01.1981 Yes 17.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not 19 challenged 89 Ram 21.01.1981 Yes 21.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Chander challenged 90 Sugreev 06.03.1981 Yes 29.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Chand challenged 101 91 Ram Sajan 31.01.1981 Yes 22.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 92 Brij Bihari 21.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Yadav - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 08th April, 2010 has been challenged 93 Lallan 30.08.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Kumar - tion letter Sharma O.A. 24.09.2008 dated April, No. 2010 has 820/20 been 10 challenged 94 Noorul 16.02.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Hasan - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 5th April, 2010 has been challenged 95 Virendra 31.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Nath - tion letter Pandey 24.09.2008 dated 12th April, 2010 has been challenged 96 Bunela 10.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Yadav - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 15th April, 2010 has been challenged 97 Suryaman 01.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Yadav - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 15th April, 2010 has been challenged 98 Anoop 16.02.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Kumar - tion letter 102 Nath 24.09.2008 dated 12th April, 2010 has been challenged 99 Abdul 15.02.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Shaheed - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated April, 2010 has been challenged 100 Amanutulla 16.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica h - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated April, 2010 has been challenged 101 Somai 21.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Prasad - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 08th April, 2010 has been challenged 102 Ramesh 24.06.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Chandra - tion letter Mishra 24.09.2008 dated April, 2010 has been challenged 103 Jagdish 12.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 05th April, 2010 has been challenged 104 Om 21.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Prakash - tion letter Srivastava 24.09.2008 dated 08th April, 2010 has been challenged 105 Nirmal 01.10.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica 103
- tion letter 24.09.2008 dated April, 2010 has been challenged 106 Sakir Ali 21.02.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter 24.09.2008 dated April, 2010 has been challenged 107 Visai 16.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica Prasad - tion letter 24.09.2008 dated 07th April, 2010 has been challenged 108 Dhooplal 02.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter 24.09.2008 dated April, 2010 has been challenged 109 Bijendra 26.03.1980 Yes 08.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged Singh 110 Ram Lal 14.12.1980 Yes 17.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Shah challenged 111 Shyam Lal 09.12.1980 Yes 17.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Shah challenged 112 Chandrama 01.08.1980 Yes 08.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 113 Vakil Rai 31.03.1980 Yes 08.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not challenged 114 Suresh Rai 31.12.1980 Yes 22.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not O.A. challenged No. 115 Prayag 21.07.1980 Yes 11.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not 1424/2 Mahto challenged 018 116 Buddhan 18.07.1980 Yes 11.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not 104 Rai challenged 117 Kishun 07.01.1981 Yes 22.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Dev challenged 118 Brijnandan 26.12.1980 Yes 12.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 119 Harendar 28.02.1981 Yes 28.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 120 Bhagwan 22.04.1976 Yes 16.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Shah challenged 121 Jai Ram 01.03.1980 Yes 07.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Prasad challenged 122 Brij Mohan 24.12.1980 Yes 07.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 123 Jai Prakash 30.03.1980 Yes Not called 25.03.2010 Not Yadav for challenged screening 124 Shiv 27.02.1981 Yes Not called 25.03.2010 Not Ghulam for challenged Prasad screening 125 Nageshwar 01.08.1980 Yes 09.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 126 Jagannath 27.12.1980 Yes 22.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Manjhi challenged 127 Nirmal 28.02.1981 Yes 28.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Shah challenged 128 Yogendra 24.02.1981 Yes 27.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Rai challenged 129 Shivji 16.02.1981 Yes 24.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not Mahto challenged 130 Ram Nigah 29.03.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
Shah for
screening
131 Ram 16.02.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
Kishore for
Thakur screening
132 Baleshwar 16.12.1976 Yes 09.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Mahto challenged
133 Ram Jeet 22.03.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
Rai for
105
screening
134 Chandeshw 01.07.1980 Yes 10.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not
ar challenged
135 Raj Nath 16.12.1980 Yes 21.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Shah challenged
136 Sakaldeep 01.08.1980 Yes 09.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Kumar challenged
Vidhyarthi
137 Shri 28.04.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
Prabhu for
Pandit screening
138 Hari Nath 15.02.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
Sharma for
screening
139 Madan Lal 30.01.1981 Yes 21.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
140 Bhola 16.04.1981 Yes 16.04.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
141 Hoob Lal 16.01.1981 Yes 21.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
142 Abdul 04.01.1981 Yes 13.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Saleem challenged
143 Ram Lalit 16.01.1981 Yes 29.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
144 Ramagya ............. Yes 19.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
145 Lal Bachan 18.10.1980 Yes 12.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
146 Ram 06.03.1981 Yes 10.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Lakshan challenged
147 Palakdhari 15.02.1976 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
O.A.
challenged
No.
148 Kali 21.02.1981 Yes 01.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
54/201
Charan challenged
9
149 Ram Sati 25.04.1979 Yes 06.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
150 Ram 16.01.1981 Yes 17.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Pravesh challenged
151 Dulare 02.03.1981 Yes 09.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
106
challenged
152 Harhanhi 01.11.1980 Yes 28.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
153 Rekhai 01.01.1981 Yes 12.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
154 Puranmasi 01.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
155 Mahabir 14.01.1981 Yes 16.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
156 Pardesi 16.01.1981 Yes 03.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
157 Ram 13.01.1981 Yes 13.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Bhajan challenged
158 Gorakh 12.01.1981 Yes 16.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
159 Chirkut 06.03.1981 Yes 09.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
160 Asgar ............. Yes 27.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
161 Om 16.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Prakash challenged
162 Rangilal 16.01.1981 Yes 17.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
163 Ram Pratap 14.01.1981 Yes 16.06.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Yadav challenged
164 Ram 12.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Ashray challenged
165 Suresh 01.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
166 Shanker 21.02.1981 Yes 01.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
167 Ramagya 28.02.1981 Yes 09.07.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
168 Vishwalesh 16.04.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
war Prasad - challenged
24.09.2008
169 Rajesh 06.04.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Kumar - tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
107
2010 has
been
challenged
170 Ram Avtar 24.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter
24.09.2008 dated 5th
April 2010
O.A. has been
No. challenged
171 Guru 819/20 18.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Prasad 10 - tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
172 Haresh 24.04.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Kumar - tion letter
Upadhyay 24.09.2008 dated 5th
April 2010
has been
challenged
173 Virendra 04.04.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Kumar - challenged
24.09.2008
174 Budhai 22.04.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter
24.09.2008 dated 5th
April 2010
has been
challenged
175 Ram 19.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Bharat - tion letter
Yadav 24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
176 Shyamlal 16.07.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
108
challenged
177 Laxmi 21.07.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Narain - tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
178 Asharfi Lal 27.07.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
179 Babu Ram 16.07.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
180 Ram 14.07.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Prakash - tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
181 Sri Prama 08.11.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
182 Rama 25.09.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Shanker - tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
183 Hari May 1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Shanker - tion letter
24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
184 Balram 08.11.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
109
Singh - tion letter
Yadav 24.09.2008 dated April
2010 has
been
challenged
185 Dinesh 01.01.1980 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Kumar - challenged
Tiwari 24.09.2008
186 Banwari 22.04.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
for
screening
187 Prem Singh 02.09.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
for
O.A. screening
188 Bhai Singh No. 22.12.1979 Yes Not called ---- ----
1267/2 for
012 screening
189 Pritam 02.09.1980 Yes Not called ---- ----
for
screening
190 Khem 08.10.1979 Yes Not called ---- ----
Singh for
screening
191 Dharam 14.01.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
Raj Singh for
screening
192 Gorakhnath 14.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
193 Dilip 10.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Kumar - challenged
24.09.2008
194 Ram 09.01.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
Hujoor for
screening
195 Radhey 14.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 ----
Shyam -
O.A. 24.09.2008
196 Singhasan No. 13.01.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
110
232/20 for
08 screening
197 Ram 13.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
Ashrey - tion order
24.09.2008 dated
16.04.2010
has been
challenged
198 Lalji 23.01.1981 Yes Not called ---- Communica
for tion order
screening dated
05.04.2010
has been
challenged
199 Jangli 14.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Communica
- tion order
24.09.2008 dated
19.04.2010
has been
challenged
200 Ramashrey 15.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 ----
-
24.09.2008
201 Thaggai 14.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 ----
-
24.09.2008
202 Ram 01.03.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
Darash for
Yadav screening
203 Kanhiya 14.01.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
for
screening
204 Avdhu 13.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
205 Chandrika 14.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
206 Ram 27.03.1981 Yes Not called ---- ----
Ashrey for
screening
111
207 Yogendra September Yes Not called ---- ----
1995 for
screening
208 Ram August 1995 Yes Not called ---- ----
Mohan for
screening
209 Raju O.A. August 1997 Yes Not called ---- ----
No. for
1831/2 screening
210 Ramniwas 012 July 2000 Yes Not called ---- ----
for
screening
211 Rakesh July 2000 Yes Not called ---- ----
for
screening
212 Mant Lal 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
213 Rama 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Nand - challenged
24.09.2008
214 Ram Ratan 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
215 Ram Das O.A. 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
No. - challenged
609/20 24.09.2008
216 Phool 19 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Chand - challenged
24.09.2008
217 Birbal 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
218 Param 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Hans - challenged
24.09.2008
219 Phool 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Chand - challenged
24.09.2008
112
220 Rajendra 11.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
O.A. challenged
221 Rajpati No. 15.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
942/20 challenged
222 Ram 21 15.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Naresh challenged
223 Ram 10.01.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
Kewal challenged
Yadav
224 Parasnath 11.03.1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
challenged
225 Sunil O.A. Not ---- No Not ----
Kumar No. mentioned in screening applicable
960/20 OA held
21
226 Ram Adhar 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
227 Ramayan O.A. 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
No. - challenged
368/20 24.09.2008
228 Om Lal 19 1981 Yes 05.05.2008 25.03.2010 Not
- challenged
24.09.2008
64. From the perusal of records, it is evident that applicants in all the OAs were engaged during the period 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1997 and 2000. Thereafter, they were retrenched / disengaged. It is also evident from the records that all the applicants have completed minimum tenure for being granted temporary status. In compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, respondents prepared the live casual labour register for the purpose of absorption of the casual labours who were working by that time and ex-casual labours who have completed the prescribed length of service. It is further evident from the record that respondents held screening of the 113 applicants consequent to which they were declared unsuitable and due to this reason they were not absorbed / regularized. It is also evident that a few of the casual labours had approached before this Bench, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and even the Apex Court for the redressal of their grievance. Some of the petitions filed by them were allowed and many of the casual labours were absorbed but few petitions were dismissed and no relief was granted to them either by the Hon'ble High Court or by the Apex Court. In some cases, age relaxation has been granted for the absorption of the causal labours but in many cases no such relief was granted to them. It is also evident from the record that almost all the applicants in all the OAs have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for service meaning thereby that if they were absorbed earlier they would have already stood retired as on date.
65. Submissions of the learned counsels for the applicants are of many fold, mainly on the ground that all the applicants were included in the live casual register and thus they were to be absorbed on their seniority basis but respondents completely ignoring their seniority did not absorb them and instead juniors to those applicants have been absorbed. It has also been argued that this situation arose due to inaction on the part of respondents. Had the applicants been absorbed / regularized timely, they would have been retired by today. Thus, referring to the aforesaid argument in all the original applications, learned counsels for the applicants have submitted that applicants must not be compelled to suffer due to inaction on the part of respondents. Referring to the judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed by Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 75 of 2013 the operative portion of which has already been quoted in the previous paragraphs, learned counsels for the applicants have submitted that in the said judgment, respondents were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a similarly placed petitioner citing that he must not suffer irreparable losses due to inaction of respondents. Now the question before the Court is whether this Bench is empowered to give 114 age relaxation to the applicants and applicants in case they have retired, can they be granted monetary compensation. To answer this question, it would be in the fitness of the things to retrace the law (as has already been quoted in previous paragraphs) laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Case (supra) and Hanichal Roy (supra) case. Taking the above rulings into consideration with regard to the question this Tribunal is posed with herein above, certainly in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, Tribunal cannot give age relaxation to the applicants particularly when all the applicants have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit.
66. As regards to the directions to be issued for payment of compensation to the applicants who have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit, a screening was held during the period 05.05.2008 - 24.09.2008 and in most of the OAs, the result of the screening committee has not been challenged by the applicants. If the counter affidavits of the respondents are taken into consideration on this point, it is also evident that applicants were declared unsuitable for the reason that they were overage. Although this reason has not been specifically mentioned in the orders passed by the screening committee, the opinion of the Court would not have been otherwise even if the above reason was mentioned.
67. Although in Ambika Singh case (supra) which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, age relaxation was granted to the petitioner, however, this relief could not be extended in all the cases as in rem. Each case has its own facts and circumstances and the controversy therein must be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of that particular case.
68. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Uma Devi case (supra) has clearly held (as has already been quoted in the previous paragraphs) that casual labour has no right to seek regularization. This view of the Apex Court came in a Constitution Bench deciding the similar issue.115
The Apex Court had observed that when there is no sanctioned post, there is no question of regularizing the irregular appointment made against the rule and regulation.
69. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in a similar casual labour matter in Ashok Kumar case (supra) has also dismissed the plea taken by the casual labours for giving them age relaxation for their absorption.
70. Now the question is whether respondents can be directed to give the notional benefit to the applicants who have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit. It may be mentioned here that since result of the screening committee has not been challenged, some of the applications filed in the year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 have been filed after a lapse of many years since the cause of action actually arose. This has been done only because some of those casual labours have been granted benefit of absorption. Since applicants of the aforesaid OAs have approached before the court at a belated stage, the relief sought by them cannot be accepted. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) case wherein the Court has held that if there are delays and latches in filing the OA before the Tribunal and the applicants were sleeping over their rights, they cannot be extended the benefit as claimed by them. The aggrieved persons were not conscious about their rights and have approached before the Tribunal at a belated stage. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava case (supra), plea taken by the applicants on this ground can also not be accepted.
71. On the basis of aforesaid discussions and facts disclosed in the above chart, it is abundantly clear that the applicants have neither challenged the initial retrenchment order nor the order passed by the screening committee. Further, a few of the OAs have been filed at a belated stage without giving satisfactory explanation. It is also 116 pertinent to mention that scheme launched by the government is not in existence anymore and most importantly, almost all the applicants in the aforesaid OAs have crossed the age of superannuation. This Tribunal is not empowered to grant age relaxation at a belated stage. Thus, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the deliberations which have been quoted above, this Tribunal is of the view that applicants can also not be granted compensatory benefits in terms of money and the prayer made in all the OAs is not liable to be allowed. This view also draws strength from the law laid down by the Apex Court in Uma Devi case (supra) and thus, no benefit can be extended to the applicants in all the aforesaid cases. Accordingly, all the original applications viz., OA No. 31 of 2019, OA No. 13 of 2019, OA No. 52 of 2019, OA No. 69 of 2019, OA No. 329 of 2019, OA No. 726 of 2019, OA No. 1143 of 2019, OA No. 330 of 2019, OA No. 820 of 2019, OA No. 1424 of 2019, OA No. 54 of 2019, OA No. 819 of 2010, OA No. 1267 of 2012, OA No. 323 of 2008, OA No. 1831 of 2012, OA No. 609 of 2019, OA No. 942 of 2021, OA No. 960 of 2021 and OA No. 368 of 2019 are dismissed being devoid of merits.
72. All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly.
73. No costs.
74. Copy of this judgment be placed in the respective files of all the above listed OAs.
(Justice Om Prakash VII) Member (Judicial) (Ritu Raj )