Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Nelson vs Union Of India on 22 December, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 180/00313/2016
Thursday, this the 22nd day of December, 2016
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member
Nelson, aged 55, S/o. Chellanadar,
Kuzhikode poset, Muzhamoodu, Kerala-629 167. ... Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Sajitha S.D.)
Versus
1. Union of India, rep. by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Jead Quarters Office,
Park Town (PO), Chennai.
2. The Division Railway Manager, thern Railway,
Trivandrum Division, Tvm-14.
3. The Divisional Personal Officer,
Southern Railway, Trivandrum Division,
Tvm-14. ... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. K. Girija)
This application having been heard on 20.12.2016, the Tribunal on
22.12.2016 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. U. Sarathchandran, Judicial Member -
Applicant is seeking regularisation and absorption as Group-D in the Trivandrum Division of Southern Railway. According to him he began working for the Railway as Khalasi, engaged from 17.12.1979. He claims that he continued working till 5.12.1980 and thereafter after a break of two years he began his service in Mettur Thermal Power Project Siding. According to him he was selected as casual labour-Khalasi after undergoing a trade test and after adjudging his suitability. His grievance is that though he had put in 570 days of Khalasi-casual labour he was not absorbed in the regular services of the Railway unlike many other casual labourers who were engaged for lesser number of days. Though he sent Annexure A3 and similar other representations he was not considered for absorption. Hence, he has approached this Tribunal seeking relief as under:
'A) appropriate direction may be given to the respondents to consider the applicant for regular absorption as Group D employee in Tvm Division of southern Railway without any age restriction in preference to persons with lesser service that the applicant and direct the respondents accordingly.
B) direct the respondents to grant the applicant the benefit of such absorption on par with his juniors, including arrears of pay and allowances arising there from.
C) Grant such other relief as deem fit at the time of hearing and just and proper considering the facts and circumstances of the case including cost of application.'
2. In their reply statement the respondents contend that as per Annexure A2 casual labour card produced by the applicant he has worked for 313 and half days as casual labour under construction organisation and later he was engaged as project casual labour under the Mettur Thermal Power Project Siding for 17 days and the amounts due to him were settled on both the occasions. According to the respondents he was medically examined only to ascertain his medical fitness before being engaged as casual labour. He had not submitted any application for re-engagement and had not submitted any representation in 1997 as claimed by him. A merged seniority list of casual labourers retrenched prior to 1.1.1981 and after 1.1.1981 was published in compliance of the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 1706 of 1994 but the applicant's name did not figure in that seniority list. He had not made any representation in this regard either. Respondents contend that the claim of the applicant is vague and does not deserve any merit.
3. A rejoinder was filed by the applicant stating that he hails from a remote village in Kerala where people are illiterate. The delay in submitting his representation was due to illiteracy and backward conditions. According to him even as per the reply statement of the respondents he had worked 844 days and therefore, he is entitled to be absorbed in the Railway service.
4. Heard Ms. Sajitha S.D., learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Ms. Vandana representing Mrs. K. Girija learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the record.
5. Obviously, the claim of the applicant is based on the apex court decision in Inderpal Yadav v. Union of India & Ors. - (1985) 2 SCC 648. According to the respondents in terms of the apex court direction in Inderpal Yadav's case a list of retrenched casual labourers in the project who were in service as on 1.1.1981 and who have already completed 360 days of casual engagement was published by the respondent Railway but the applicant's name was not figuring in that list. They state that no representation was made by the applicant for not including his name in the list of retrenched project casual labour employees. According to the respondents the applicant was not figuring in the aforesaid list as he was not eligible to be included in that list.
6. Inderpal Yadav's decision (supra) for regularising the project casual labourers was an one time measure based on the seniority of the retrenched casual labourers. If the applicant was qualified and was aggrieved for not including his name in the list prepared by the Southern Railway in terms Inderpal Yadav's decision or in the light of the order passed by this Tribunal in OA No. 1706/1994, he ought to have made representations. It appears that the applicant is raising his claim long after the process of regularisation of project casual labourers in compliance of the Inderpal Yadav's decision was completed. Now it is settled law by Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi (3) & Ors. - (2006) 4 SCC 1 - that the appointments in the Government sector can be made only in accordance with the constitutional scheme envisaged under Article 16 of the Constitution of India. The mode of appointment the applicant seeks is not in tune with the apex court decision in Umadevi's case (supra). Suffice it to say that the applicant has approached this Tribunal in this OA in a highly belated manner.
7. In the result, the OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(U. SARATHCHANDRAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER b� SAb�