Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Kallan Prasad vs General Manager N C Rly on 13 February, 2025
Reserved on 06.02.2025
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD
BENCH, ALLAHABAD
ALLAHABAD this the 13th day of February 2025.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASAH -VII, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. MOHAN PYARE, MEMBER (A)
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 330/00214 of 2021.
1. Kallan Prasad Son of Ram Jivan Yadav, aged about 59
years, Resident of Village Murwan, Post Gigina, District Mirapur.
2. Rjmani Sharma Son of Ram Swroop Sharma.
3. Raj Kumar Sharma Son of Ranveer Prasad Sharma.
4. Govind Mishra Son of Kodai Mishra.
5. Rajeshwar Prasad Son of Heera Lal.
6. Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Ram Pal Singh.
7. Shiv Chandra Singh Son of Ram Swaroop.
8. Niranjan Singh Son of Gajraj Singh.
9. Yash Pal Singh Son of Nannu Singh.
10. Rajveer Singh Son of Shri Jhargari.
11. Rajendra
12. Ram Raj Patel
13. Kapil Dev Gauta Son of Nand Lal Gautam,
14. Arvind Kumar Son of Ram Hankar,
15. Kedarnath Shukla Son of Jagat Pal Shukla,
16. Radhey Shyam Son of Ram Dev,
17. Ganga Shyam Son of Mahaveer Singh,
MANISH
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
2
18. Gyan Singh Son of Ram Swaroop
19. Ganga Prasad Son of Kanchi Lal,
20. Devi Shankar Pandey Son of Gabbu Pandey,
21. Madav Prasad Son of Lal Ji Prasad Gupta,
22. Mohan Lal Yadav Son of Late Kallu,
23. Manmohan Singh Son of Sitaram Singh,
24. Satyawan Singh Son of Devji Ram,
25. Mustaq Son of Maqbool,
26. Shabha Lal Son of Hublal,
27. Banwari Lal Son of K.P. Prasad
28. Hariraj Singh Son of Ganga Singh,
29. Braj Mohan Son of Kanchi Prasad,
30. Bhola Shankar Son of Khushal Singh,
31. Mohmood Alam Son of Aziz Mohd.,
32. Ranjeet Singh Son of Netra Pal,
33. Ramesh Chandra Son of Phool Singh,
34. Dinesh Kumar Yadav Son of S.N. Yadav,
35. Jabar Singh Son of Sujaan Singh,
36. Laxman Prasad Sonkar Son of Ramdeen Sonkar,
37. Mangla Prasad Son of Late Ram Sumer,
38. Masuriya Deen Son of Mauji Lal,
39. Munna Lal Sonkar Son of Briji Lal,
40. Shiv Lal Son of Raj Narayan
MANISH
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
3
41. Prasa Nath Prasad Son of Ram Vacha Ram,
42. Mohammad Sarvan Son of Mohammad Ali.
43. Amar Singh Son of Ramanand Singh,
44. Manik Chandra Patel Son of Shivraj,
45. Janardan Yadav Son of Mukh Deo Yadav,
46. Ram Tirath Son of Shankar Lal,
47. Somnath Son of Jag Mohan,
48. Dilkeshwar Son of Pachuram,
49. Durga Prasad Son of Chedi,
50. Janardan Son of Hoti Dal,
51. Murari Prasad Son of Bhagelu Prasad,
52. Dharam Singh Son of late Khushru Yadav,
53. Ram Vishal Son of Jageshwar Prasad
54. Dharam Jeet Son of Dhya Ram
55. Mustaq Ahmad Son of Iftekhar Ahmad
56. Kamlesh Kumar Son of Ghaseeta Lal
57. Virendra Pandey Son of Late Jamuna Pandey
58. Ram Raj Gupta Son of Dhiraj
59. Bhagwandeen Son of Ram Lal
60. Phool Chandra Son of Chandra Pal
61. Mohd. Ishrail Son of Mohd. Amir
62. Anil Kumar Shrivastav Son of Ram Dev Narayan Shrivastav
63. Prem Chandra Yadav Son of Chandrika
MANISH
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
4
64. Zakir Hussain Son of Mohd. Bashi
65. Badri Prasad Yadav Son of Amrit Lal Yadav
66. Hari Kumar Son of Daya Shankar Verma
67. Ashrafi Lal Son of Cheddu Lal
68. Bihari Lal Son of Ram Lakhan
69. Jeet Lal Son of Sadal
70. Birbal Yadav Son of Sohan Lal
71. Munna Yadav Son of Bliram Yadav
72. Raj Ram Son Maniram
73. Shiv Bhabhuti Yadav Son of Ram Pravesh Yadav
74. Ramji Yadav Son of Shivjogi Yadav
75. Shiv Datt Singh Son of Ram Roop
76. Ramgopal Son of Nihal Singh
77. Tej Singh Son of Pancham Singh
78. Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Amar Singh
79. Kali Dayal Yadav Son of Hardas Yadav
80. Pawan Kumar Son of Ram Bhajan,
81. Keshav Yadav Son of Ram Dev Yadav,
82. Kalamuddin Son of Mohammad Jahir,
All the Parcel Porters working North-Central Railway, Allahabad
under Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
.............Applicants.
MANISH
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA
5
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Chairman, Railway Board Rail
Bhawa, Baroda House, New Delhi-110001
2. The General Manager, North-Central Railway, Subedarganj,
Allahabad.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North-Central Railway,
Nawab Yusuf Road, Allahabad.
4. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, North-Central Railway,
Allahabad.
......Respondents
Present for the Applicants: Shri Shiv Mangal
Shri Vinod Kumar
Present for the Respondents: Shri S.C. Mishra
ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASAH -VII, MEMBER (J) By means of present Original Application, the applicants have sought the following reliefs:-
"(i) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature, quashing the orders impugned dated 14.12.2020 & 17.12.2020, issued from the office of respondent No. 3 (as contained Annexure Nos.A-1 and A-2) to the compilation No. 1 to this application.
(ii) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature, directing the respondent department to regularized the services of the applicants w.e.f..
02.07.1997 at par with other similarly situated colleague employees of the department in the light of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of All India Railway Parcel and Goods Porters Union Vs. UOI and others (2003) 11 SCC 590.
(iii) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature, directing the respondent department to treat the applicants as regular employee i.e. Parcel Porters w.e.f. 02.07.1997 and then extend the all consequential MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 6 benefits to them within specified period as to specified by this Hon'ble Tribunal.
(iv) To issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(v) To award costs".
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicants, although absorbed and regularized in service, were not granted regularization from the date of their initial engagement. They relied on multiple writ petitions filed by Parcel Porters working at different railway stations, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed authorities to regularize their services from the date of their engagement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the petition No. 277 of 1988, directing the respondents to regularize the services of the applicants from the date of initial engagement. The applicants, relying on these precedents, filed OA No. 104 of 2010 before the Tribunal, claiming regularization from their initial date of engagement. The Tribunal observed in their favor, directing authorities to redesignate them as permanent Parcel Porters from their first date of joining as Substitute Parcel Porters. The respondents challenged the observation of the Tribunal through Writ Petition No. 65108 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on 16.04.2013, thereby affirming the Tribunal's order. Attempts by the respondents to seek further appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court were made but failed. In compliance with the Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court orders, applicants of OA No. 104 of 2010 were granted regularization from their initial engagement date. The present applicants are claiming that they have been regularized but have not been given the benefit of regularization from their initial engagement date, contrary to the settled judicial precedent. Present applicants filed OA in which the Tribunal directed the applicants to submit comprehensive representations for consideration in light of the Tribunal and High Court decisions. The respondents rejected MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 7 the representations, allegedly misinterpreting the Tribunal's judgment passed in OA No. 104 of 2010 and Hon'ble High Court decision passed in Writ Petition No. 65108 of 2011. Hence, the present original application.
3. Respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein they have stated that the impugned orders are in accordance with directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court and the applicants were absorbed/regularized from the date of issuance of the order because the court's direction was to be implemented prospectively. Impugned orders are legally sound, and there is no illegality or perversity in its issuance.
4. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the applicant has reiterated the facts as stated in the OA and denied the contents of the counter affidavit. Nothing new has been asserted in the rejoinder affidavit.
5. We have heard Shri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri S.C. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the records.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that applicants although absorbed and regularized but absorption and regularization have not been made from the date of initial engagement. It was next argued that a group of Parcel Porter working at different Railway station had approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for their absorption and regularization through Writ Petition No. 277 of 1988, which was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court directing the authorities concerned to regularize the services of such Parcel Porter from the date of their engagement. After decision in the aforesaid writ petition, several other Parcel Porter working on different Railway Stations had also approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court through Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 507 of 1992, 415 of 1992, 82 of 1993 and 838 MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 8 of 1992 which were also decided by a common judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 09.05.1995 in the same line as had been decided in writ petition No. 277 of 1988. Another writ petition Nos. 568 of 1995 and 711 of 1995 were also decided in the same line. It was further argued that writ petition No. 433 of 1998 had also been decided in favour of the Railway Parcel Porter who were working at different railway station for last 10 to 30 years continuously observing that Parcel Porter were discharging duty of permanent and perennial nature. In compliance of the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petitions, absorption and regularization orders were passed but they were not regularized from the date of initial engagement rather from the date of passing the regularization order. Feeling aggrieved, some of Parcel Porter filed OA No. 104 of 2010 before this Tribunal claiming their regularization w.e.f. the date of initial engagement. Tribunal after discussing the entire facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid writ petitions allowed the OA and directed the authorities concerned to redesignate the applicants a permanent Parcel Porter w.e.f. their first date of joining as Substitute Parcel Porter on the availability of the post in pursuance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was next argued that judgment and order passed in the aforesaid OA was challenged by the respondents through Writ Petition No. 65108 of 2011 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which was dismissed on 16.04.2013 affirming the judgment and order passed in the aforesaid OA. It was next argued that although respondents tried to approach before the Hon'ble Supreme Court to challenge the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petitions but no consent/permission was given by the Railway Authorities, thus, judgments and orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid OA as well as Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition have attained finality. It was also argued that direction given in the aforesaid OA was thereafter complied with and applicants of that OA were given MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 9 benefit of regularization w.e.f. their date of initial engagement as would be clear from Annexure No. 10 to the OA. It was further argued that although applicants have been regularized but they have not been given benefit of judgment and order passed in the aforesaid writ petition and their regularization is not from the date of initial engagement, thus, applicants had approached before this Tribunal through OA, which was disposed of directing the applicants to file a comprehensive representations and authorities concerned were directed to decide the same within a time bound manner in the light of judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. Learned counsel for the applicants referring to the impugned order further argued that respondents have wrongly interpreted the judgment and order passed in the OA No. 104 of 2010 as well as observations recorded in the writ petition No. 65108 of 2011 and rejected the representations of the applicants, thus, argued that applicants' case is also squarely covered with the dictum pass in the OA No. 104 of 2010, which has been affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, thus, argued to allow the OA directing the respondents to extend the benefit to the applicants as has been extended to the similarly situated persons of the OA No. 104 of 2010.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit argued that impugned order passed in the matter are in line with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment as well as Hon'ble High Court. Since the direction was to be implemented prospectively, due to this reason applicant were absorbed/regularized from the date on which order was issued. Learned counsel for the respondents specifically referred to para No. 28 and further argued that no illegality or perversity can be traced in the impugned order. Applicants' regularization cannot be done w.e.f. Initial engagement. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the Annexure CA-1, letter dated MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 10 25.06.2005 issued in regard to the absorption of the Parcel Porter as well as Annexure CA-2 wherein date of birth as well as date of absorption has been shown, thus, argued that OA lacks merit and is not liable to be allowed.
8. We have gone through the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through entire records.
9. From the perusal of record it is evident that several Parcel Porter, who had been engaged through service provider under the respondents' department were working as Parcel Porter continuously on different Railway Stations. Some of them approached before the Hon'ble Supreme Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India through writ petition No. 277 of 1988 with the prayer to regularize their services. Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.4.1991 allowed the writ petition directing the respondents/railway administration to treat the petitioners as regular Parcel Porter w.e.f. 15.4.1991 and to grant them the same salary which is being paid to the regular Parcel Porter. It also appears from the record that after decision in the writ petition No. 277 of 1988, several other Parcel Porter working at different Railway Stations filed writ petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court claiming the same relief as had been granted to the petitioners of writ petition No. 277 of 1988. All the writ petitions filed subsequent to the writ petition No. 277 of 1988 were also allowed. It also appears that in compliance with the direction given in the several writ petitions mentioned hereinabove, respondents regularized the services of the Parcel Porter. Since regularization was done only from the date of issuance of regularization order, therefore, few of the Parcel Porter approached before Tribunal through OA No. 104 of 2010, which was decided on 16.5.2011 whereby reliefs claimed by them were allowed with the direction to the respondents to redesignate them as permanent Parcel Porter w.e.f. their first date of joining as Substitute Parcel MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 11 Porter on the availability of the post in pursuance of direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It further appears that judgment and order passed in OA No. 104 of 2010 was challenged through writ 'A' No.65108 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad which was dismissed on 16.4.2013 affirming the order passed by the Tribunal in the aforesaid OA. For ready reference, judgment and order passed in the OA No. 104 of 2010 is quoted as below:
"[Open Court] CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2011 ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 104 OF 2010 U/s 19, Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 Present:-
HONBLE MR. JUSTICE S. C. SHARMA, MEMBER-J
1. Daya Nand Gupta, S/o Sri Gauri Shanker Gupta.
2. Vinay Awasthi S/o Sri Kailash Nath.
3. Moinuddin S/o Sri Badruddin.
4. Rajesh Kumar Mishra S/o Sri Vishnu Prasad Mishra.
5. Suresh Prasad S/o Sri Sita Ram.
6. Ram Singh S/o Sri Kali Charan.
7. Jawahar S/o Sri Ram Vilash.
8. Virendra Kumar Singh S/o Sri Parmeshwar Singh.
9. Ramesh Singh S/o Sri Baij Nath Singh
10. Awadesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Sri Ram Autar
11. Ghanshyam Kumar S/o Sri Raghu Nath.
12. Gauri Shankar S/o Sri Raghu Nath Prasad.
13. Sant Lal Pal S/o Sri Munni Lal.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 12
14. Dwikar Singh S/o Sri Amar Nath Singh.
15. Ram Ashish Ram S/o Sri Faujdar Ram.
16. Rajesh Kumar S/o Sri Parmanand Pandey
17. Kalamuddin S/o Sri Abdul Luies
18. Vijay Kumar Dubey S/o Sri Ram Adhar Dubey.
19. Lalta Prasad Tiwari S/o Sri Nand Gopal Tiwari
20. Suresh Kumar S/o Sri Dharam Nath Raj
21. Chandrika S/o Sri Ram Dayal
22. Ram Naresh S/o Sri Rati Ram
23. Ram Iqbal Singh S/o Sri Sadal Singh.
24. Ramesh Prasad S/o Sri Jeevat Ram.
25. Jagat Pal S/o Late Sri Chhote
26. Mithai Lal S/o Sri Ram Prasad.
27. Rakesh Kumar Dwivedi S/o Sri Parshuram Dwivedi
28. Hukum Prasad Mishra S/o Sri Uma Prasad Mishra.
29. Mohd. Arif S/o Sri Mohd. Ismail.
30. Rama Shankar S/o Sri Shyam Lal
31. Rajendra Prasad Rathore S/o Sri Laxmi Narayan Rathore.
32. Satyendra Mishra S/o Late Sri Babban Mishra.
33. Rohit Prasad S/o Sri Shankar Prasad.
34. Virendra Singh S/o Sri Parshuram Singh.
35. Siya Ram S/o Sri Satti Deen
36. Jalaluddin S/o Sri Abdul Lais
37. Vishwa Nath S/o Sri Fhaiku Shah
38. Awadh Narain S/o Sri Badal
39. Ram Dhari S/o Sri Ram Subhag.
40. Indra Bhushan Dubey S/o Sri Rama Shankar Dubey.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 13
41. Sureman S/o Sri Jiau
42. Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sri Devi Charan Sahu
43. Shiv Janam S/o Sri Bhullan
44. Jaswant Singh S/o Sri Jag Mohan Singh
45. Yogendra Kumar S/o Sri Ram Avtar
46. Rama Shankar Tiwari S/o Sri Bhagwat Prasad.
47. Ram Dayal S/o Sri Heera Lal
48. Yogendra Pandit
49. Ashok Kumar S/o Sri Lallu
50. Dinesh S/o Sri Harvansh
51. Aditya Kumar Singh S/o Sri Bharat Singh
52. Chandrika S/o Sri Maiku
53. Ram Vilash S/o Sri Ram Nagina
54. Shiv Prasad S/o Sri Bhondu
55. Munna S/o Sri Bashir
56. Ram Charan S/o Sri Ram Kripal
57. Subhash Chandra S/o Sri Lala Ram
58. Fateh Bahadur Dubey S/o Sri Dashrath Dubey
59. Ram Kripal S/o Sri Baleshwar
60. Surendra Singh S/o Sri Shiv Dayal Singh
61. Awadhesh Prasad S/o Sri Darti Ram
62. Brij Kishore Yadav S/o Sri Shankar Yadav
63. Shambhu Prasad S/o Sri Dwarika Bhagat
64. Anand Dev Prasad S/o Sri Munar
65. Vijay Kumar Singh S/o Kameshwar Singh
66. R.K. Bajpai
67. Arun Kumar, S/o Sri Gopal Prasad MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 14
68. Ram Bharosa S/o Sri Palak Dhari
69. Ram Singh S/o Sri Shyamoo
70. Munna Lal S/o Sri Bansi Lal
71. Ram Bilas Soni S/o sri Prakash
72. Govind Rai S/o Sri Lakhan Rai
73. Jai Prakash S/o Sri Jagdish Narain
74. Mewa Lal S/o Sri Maikoo Lal
75. Alakh Ram Yadav S/o Sri Chhatti Lal Yadav
76. Sita Ram S/o Sri Dhan Pal Pathak
77. Shailendra Kumar Srivastava S/o Sri Guljari Lal Srivastava
78. Suresh S/o Sri Mewa Lal
79. Gulab Chandra Sharma S/o Sri Sita Ram Sharma
80. Rajendra Singh Yadav S/o Sri Duli Chand Yadav
81. Ram Ashish S/o Sri Laloo Prasad
82. Radhey Shyam S/o Sri Janardan
83. Ram Singh S/o Sri Ram Bharose Singh
84. Mohan Singh S/o Sri Ram Bharose Singh
85. Manzoor Ahmad S/o Sri Nazeer Ahmed
86. Jai Ganesh S/o Late Gaya Prasad Bajpai
87. Ram Bhej S/o Sri Chini Prasad
88. Moti Lal Pandey S/o Sri Dhananjay Prasad
89. Satram Yadav S/o Sri Bhullan Yadav
90. Jagroop Singh S/o Sri Mangal Singh
91. Govinda Singh S/o Sri Dharam Dev Singh
92. Indra Sen S/o Sri Antoo
93. Om Prakash Saroj
94. Bansi Lal S/o Sri Nankoo MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 15
95. Rakesh Kumar S/o Sri Ram Pyare
96. Ashok Mishra S/o Shiv Naresh Mishra
97. Manoj Kumar Shukla S/o Kamlesh Kumar Shukla
98. Chottey S/o Jaganu
99. Ram Nath S/o Jaganu
100. Kanhaiya Lal Pandey S/o Kariya Prasad
101. Mohan Lal Gupta S/o Ram Ji Gupta
102. Arjun Singh S/o Chedi Singh
103. Nathu Ram S/o Not Known
104. Jamal Nasir S/o Noor Mahammad
105. Hriday Nath Tiwari S/o Rudra Nath Tiwari
106. Sanjay Kumar Tripathi S/o Jitendra Kumar
107. Om Prakash Singh S/o Shiv Nandan Singh
108. Jitendra Kumar Mishra S/o Babban Mishra
109. Pravesh S/o Nanhu
110. Lal Babu Yadav S/o Kulena
111. Vivek Kumar Sharma S/o Ram Chandra Sharma
112. Ashok Kumar S/o Vishambhar Dayal
113. Shiv Pal S/o Girdhari
114. Ram Kripal Tiwari S/o Bhagwat Prasad
115. Ram Kishan S/o Ram Autar
116. Putan Singh S/o Ram Kishan
117. Sri Krishna S/o Ram Kirshana
118. Mohd. Shaikulah S/o Mohd. Ishab
119. Dinesh Chandra Sahu S/o Ramesh Chandra
120. Mahesh S/o Ganga Ram
121. Raj Kumar Dixit S/o Ram Kishan Dixit MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 16
122. Vinod Kumar S/o Ram Swaroop All the applicants are working as Substitute Parcel Porter at Kanpur Central Railway Station under Allahabad Division of North Central Railway.
Applicants Versus
1. Union of India through General Manger, Northern Central Railway, Subedar Ganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Central Railway, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
3. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad Division, Allahabad.
Respondents Advocate present for the applicant:- Sri A. K. Srivastava Sri M. K. Srivastava Advocate present for the respondents:- Sri P. N. Rai ORDER Instant O.A. has been instituted for giving a direction to the respondents to give effect the applicants as Permanent Railway Parcel Poters with effect from their first day of joining as Substitute Parcel Porter alongwith the arrears of pay of that period. Facts of the case may be summarized as follows:-
2. Instant O.A. has been instituted on behalf of the 122 Substitute Parcel Porters and it has been alleged that these applicants had been working as Parcel Porter on contract for a longer period at Railway Stations under the command of the North Central Railway, Allahabad. The applicants had been performing the duties of the Railway in regard to load and unload the Goods in the train for twenty four hours in shifts of 8 hours. The applicants were treated as the workers on contract, but the compliance of all the orders concerning personnel of the Railway were made, which was contrary to the provisions of the contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. Then the applicants were having regular contact with the concerning official regarding matter of their regularization, but assurance was provided, without any fruit. That writ petition No. 277 of 1998 was filed before the Honble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 17 Constitution of India for 166 Railway Parcel Porters working on contract labour in certain Railway station of the Indian Railways had claimed for issuance of direction to the Union of India and Railway Administration for their permanent absorption. The Honble Supreme Court vide order dated 04th October, 1989 directed the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh to enquire as to whether the writ petitioners were contract labour working at Railway Station for several years as claimed by them and submit his report.
The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, hold an elaborate enquiry after affording opportunity to the contesting parties in the writ petition to have their say, submitted their report dated 17th October, 990 and in view of the report the Honble Supreme Court allowed the writ petition on 15th April, 1991 and directed the Railway Administration to treat the petitioners as regular parcel porter w.e.f. 15th April, 1991 and to grant the same salary which is being paid to the regular parcel porter. Even after this judgment of the Honble Apex Court the respondents have filed another writ petition (civil) No. 507 of 1992 with writ petition No. 415 of 1992, 82 of 1993 and 838 of 1992 which was decided and allowed on 09th May, 1995. But even after direction of the Honble Supreme Court respondents had not complied with the order and, there after again the applicant filed a writ petition (civil) Nos. 568 and 711 of 1995 and was decided on 08th July, 1996. And in compliance of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court the respondents have provided the position of Substitute Parcel Porter and not as Regular Parcel Porter in the subsequent writ petition also the Honble Supreme Court laid down the same principle. Letters were issued in favour of the applicant. That although, the duties and liabilities are fixed like permanent Railway employees, but applicants are not paid the salary and monitory benefits, as to be paid to a regular employee. In view of the judgment of the Honble Apex Court applicants are entitled for permanent parcel porter and not as Substitute Parcel Porter. Earlier O.A. was filed before this Tribunal and in view of the direction representation was decided, but the status of permanent parcel porter was not granted to the applicants.
3. Respondents contested the case and filed Counter Reply and it is further alleged that the services of the applicants were regularized in the month of July, 1997 in compliance of judgment and order of the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the Writ Petition No.(C) Nos. 711 of 1995 and 568 of 1995. That the applicants were also the parties to the writ petition before the Honble Supreme Court and from the date of regularization till date, all the applicants are working in the Railway and are doing parcel loading and unloading works at Parcel Offices situated at Kanpur, Etawah and Fatehpur. Earlier O.As. were filed and the same were disposed of by the Tribunal on 17th December, 2008. A contempt petition was also filed and contempt petition was also dismissed by the Tribunal. That the applicants MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 18 were never awarded the contract of loading/unloading by the Railways. That the applicants were engaged as Substitute Parcel Porter in the grade of `750-940(RPS) against the said post on E.L.A. basis, the engagement of the applicants were made in pursuance of the direction of the Honble Supreme Court and salaries to the applicants were paid accordingly as Substitute Parcel Porter as per their engagement. And the representation filed by the applicant was also decided by the respondents that the services of the applicant have already been regularized, hence the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
4. One Supplementary Counter Reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondents and in the Supplementary Affidavit it has also been alleged that at the relevant time there was no post of Parcel Porter hence they were not regularized on that post, though continuously efforts made for creation of post of Parcel Porter. Recently decision has been taken by the respondents on 10th December, 2010 for re-designation of 284 posts for Parcel Porter and thus, 284 posts of Parcel Porter have been created and process of absorption of the applicant as Parcel Porter is being made through Karmik department. Letter has also been annexed with this Supplementary Counter Reply.
5. I have heard Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Advocate for the applicant and Mr. P. N. Rai, Advocate for the respondents and perused the entire facts of the case.
6. It has been argued by Mr. A. K. Srivastava, Advocate that as the applicants had been working for loading and unloading on contract basis, hence a writ petition was filed before the Honble Apex Court for regularization of the services of the applicant as Parcel Porter, judgment of the Honble Apex Court has been annexed. Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court reported in J.T. 1995 (4) S.C. 568 National Federation of Railway Porter, Vendor and Bearers Vs. Union of India and Ors. and learned counsel attracted my attention towards the relevant portion of the judgment which is reproduced as follows:-
"The absorption and regularization of the petitioners in the writ petition, who could be appointed as permanent parcel porters shall be done according to the terms indicated above and on such other terms to which they may be subjected to according to the rules or circulars of the Railway Board as expeditiously as possible, not being later than six months from today, those who have put in longer periods of work as Railway Parcel Porters on MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 19 contract labour getting preference in the matter of earlier appointment."
7. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that no compliance has been made by the respondents of the direction of the Honble Apex Court although, incompliance of the order of the Honble Supreme Court, these applicants were appointed as Substitute Parcel Porter. But this is not the compliance of the order and direction of the Honble Supreme Court, these applicants were required to be appointed as Permanent Parcel Porter. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the applicant is on the words preference in the matter of earlier appointment. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that in view of the direction of the Honble Supreme Court preference ought to have been given to the earlier appointees to the post and who were appointed earlier ought to have been appointed as regular and permanent Parcel Porter and not as Substitute Parcel Porter and in this way respondents have not complied with the direction of the Honble Supreme Court and subsequently also writ petitions were filed before the Honble Supreme Court, the judgments have also been filed by the applicants passed in writ petition Nos. 568 and 711 of 1995 National Federation of Railway Porter, Vendor and Bearers Vs. Union of India and Ors. was decided by the Honble Supreme Court on 08th July, 1996 and a direction was given in the judgment to the following effect:-
"If so whether he is on par with those candidates whose services were directed to be regularized. In case he is found to be working then the benefit of the direction given in the aforesaid decision would available to him also. The services of all those petitioners be dealt with as per the law laid down by in the aforementioned judgment."
That the compliance has also not been made by the respondents.
8. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the applicants were given the appointment as Substitute Parcel Porter with same pay and privilege. In the Supplementary Counter Reply also it has been alleged that these applicants were absorbed as Substitute Parcel Porter and they were also given the benefit of Medical Facilities, Pass, PTO, Annual Increments and leave etc. as per rule.
9. The main emphasis of the learned counsel for the applicant is that these applicants were entitled to be appointed as Permanent Parcel Porter as I have decided above that these applicants were given appointment as Substitute Parcel Porter instead of Permanent Parcel Porter. Leaned counsel for the respondents argued that for want of posts these applicants could not be appointed as Permanent Parcel Porter. Learned counsel for MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 20 the respondents also stated that there is subsequent development in this case, and in order to bring subsequent development in the notice of the Tribunal the Supplementary Counter Reply has been filed, and it has been alleged in para 3 of the Supplementary Counter Reply That now the North Central Railway Headquarters, Allahabad vide Memorandum dated 10th December, 2010 have taken a decision for re-designating the 284 Group-D posts as Parcel Porters and thus 284 posts of Parcel Porters have been created. For kind perusal of this Honble Court a Photostat copy of the Memorandum dated 10th December, 2010 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure-SCA-1. Hence it has been stated that 284 posts of Parcel Porter have been created and these applicants shall be accommodated and will be re-designated as Permanent Parcel Porter. As I have stated above that as otherwise there was no post of Permanent Parcel Porter but salaries of these applicants is being paid as Substitute Parcel Porter and now they are to be re-designated as Permanent Parcel Porter in view of respondents contention in the Supplementary Counter Reply. Hence now the grievance of the applicant shall be redressed, if there was any.
10. In view of the latest development O.A. deserves to be allowed, and the applicants shall be re-designated as Permanent Parcel Porter from the date of availability of post. In pursuance of the direction of the Honble Supreme Court O.A. deserves to be allowed.
11. O.A. is allowed order dated 07th December, 2008 shall also stands quashed, and the respondents are directed to re-designate the applicants a Permanent Parcel Porter w.e.f. their first date of joining as Substitute Parcel Porter on the availability of the post in pursuance of the direction of the Honble Supreme Court. This exercise must be completed within three months from the date when the copy of this order is produced before them. No order as to costs"
11. To appreciate the facts in better way, judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ 'A' No. 65108 of 2011 is also quoted as below:-
"Court No.36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65108 of 2011 Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru G.M., North Cental Railway & Others Respondent :- Dayanand Gupta & Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Gaur MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 21 Respondent Counsel :- S.C.,Vinod Kumar Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners-Railway Administration challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad dated 16.5.2011 passed in Original Application No.104 of 2010 and the order dated 16.8.2011 passed in the Review Application No.56 of 2011.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that an original application was filed by the respondents being Original Application No.104 of 2010 for a direction to the Union of India, Railway Administration to treat the applicants (respondents herein) as permanent Railway Parcel Porters with effect from their first day of joining as Substitute Parcel Porter with arrears of pay.
The case of the respondents before the Tribunal was that they were working on as contract workers in eight hourly shifts for loading and unloading of goods in the train for twenty four hours. It was also stated that a Writ Petition No.277 of 1998 was filed before the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by 166 Railway Parcel Porters as contract labour for a direction to the Union of India for their permanent absorption as Railway Parcel Porters. The Supreme Court by order dated 4.10.1989 directed the Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh to enquire as to whether the writ petitioners were working as contract labour at the railway station and submit his report. The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh submitted his report after conducting a detailed enquiry on 17.10.1990 and, thereafter, the writ petition was allowed by the Supreme Court by its judgement and order dated 15.4.1991 and a direction was issued to the Railway Administration to treat the respondents as Railway Parcel Porter and to give them regular salary. Thereafter, other writ petitions were filed being Writ Petition (Civil) No.507 of 1992, Writ Petition No.415 of 1992,Writ Petition No.82 of 1993 and Writ Petition No.838 of 1992 which all were decided by order dated 9.5.1995. Thereafter writ petitions being Writ Petition (Civil) No.568 of 1995 and Writ Petition (Civil) No.711 of 1995 were filed, which were ultimately decided by the Supreme Court on 8.7.1996.
According to the respondents, in compliance of the direction given by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid writ petitions,the Railway Administration issued letters of appointment to all the respondents. A copy of the letter dated 7.12.2008 has been filed alongwith the writ petition (page 72 of the present writ petition). According to the respondents, they are still being MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 22 treated as Substitute Parcel Porter although the appointment letter does not say so and are being deprived of the benefits of Parcel Porter.
The case was contested by the Railway Administration before the Central Administration Tribunal and a counter-reply was also filed. The case of the Railway Administration in para 3 of the reply is that the North Central Railway,Head Quarter, Allahabad vide Memorandum dated 10.12.2010 have taken a decision for re-designating 284 Group 'D' posts as Parcel Porters and thus 284 posts of Parcel Porters have been created and the process of absorption of the applicants (respondents herein) has been commenced through the Karmik Department.
In the present writ petition a supplementary affidavit has also been filed and in para-4 of the supplementary affidavit it has been stated that the posts of Parcel Porters were created with effect from 10.12.2010 and in these circumstances regularization of the respondents w.e.f. 1997 is neither feasible nor possible. The reason for the same is that before 10.12.2010 the post of Parcel Porter was not available in Group-D category against which the respondents could be regularized. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed in which the facts stated in the writ petition have been reiterated. Thereafter, a supplementary rejoinder affidavit has also been filed and reference has been made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Railway Parcel & Goods Handling vs. Union of India and others (2000) 1 LLJ 1050 (SC). The Tribunal, however, by the impugned order dated 16.5.2011 has allowed the original application and has directed the Railway Administration to redesignate the applicants (respondents herein) as permanent Parcel Porter with effect from their first day of joining as 'Substitute' Parcel Porter on the availability of post in pursuance of the direction of the Supreme Court.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal dated 16.5.2011, the Railway Administration filed a review petition no.56 of 2011, which too has been dismissed. Hence the present writ petition.
Heard Sri A.K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the contesting respondents.
It is stated that the North Central Railway, Head Quarter, Allahabad by memorandum dated 10.12.2010 had redesginated 284 group-D posts as Parcel Porter and thus 284 posts of Parcel Porter had been created. His submission, therefore, is that prior to redesignation of the said post the respondents could not have been treated as Parcel Porter. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case reported in J.T. 1995 (4) SC 568, National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers vs. Union Of India and others.
MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 23 Learned counsel has also referred to the later judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of All India Railway Parcel & Goods Handling vs. Union of India and others (2000) 1 LLJ 1050 (SC). The submission is that the Supreme Court has clarified its earlier judgment in the case of National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers and, therefore, the respondents cannot be treated as Parcel Porter from the date of initial appointment as on that date they were only substitutes.
Per contra Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of the Court to the order of the appointment of one of the respondents dated 7.12.2008 (page 72 of the writ petition), which was also filed before the Tribunal wherein it has been clearly stated that Daya Nand Gupta, respondent no.1 along with other applicants (respondents herein) were screened, panelled and appointed as Group-D Railway Employee during the month of July, 1997 in compliance of the Supreme Court orders passed in writ petition no.771 of 1995 and writ petition (civil) no.568 of 1995. Para 2 of the appointment letter further states that all the respondents are entitled for availing of the privileges viz Medical facilitates, Passes & PTOs, Leaves and annual increments etc. Para-3 of the said letter further states that all the respondents were 'initially' appointed as Substitute Parcel Porter, but after screening they are enjoying all the facilities, as mentioned above in para-2. Para-4 of the letter further mentions that as regards change of status from Substitute Parcel Porter, necessary action is being taken. Thus, the submission is that the respondents were appointed as regular Group-D railway employee during the month of July, 1997 after screening and empanelment in compliance of the directions given by the Supreme Court.
Sri A.K. Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners-Railway Administration, however, submitted that by order dated 10.12.2010, 284 posts in group-D were redisgnated as Parcel Porter and, therefore, it is only from this date that the respondents can be treated to be Parcel Porter and not from 1997. He has again placed considerable stress upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers (supra).
From a perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Federation of Railway Porters, Vendors & Bearers it will be seen that the Supreme Court in para -6 of the said judgment had given the following directions:-
"6. However, when in the course of the arguments addressed before us in the present writ petitions we questioned the learned counsel for the petitioners whether the petitioners in the writ petitions would be satisfied by MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 24 regularisation a few of them only if the Railway Administration concerned is not able to absorb all of them on regular basis having regard to the insufficiency of parcel handling work in a Railway Station concerned, the learned counsel for the writ petitioners, told us in categorical and unequivocal terms that the petitioners are ready and willing for absorption only a few of them as Railway Parcel Porters on a permanent basis at the cost of others loosing their employment, whenever the Railway Administration comes to the conclusion that all the Railway Parcel Porters working in the particular Railway Station on contract basis will not have sufficient work for employing them on a permanent basis and the decision of the Railway Administration made in that behalf will not be questioned. The claim of the writ petitioners for absorption as Railway Parcel Porters on a Permanent basis by the concerned railway administration, being considered as above and regard being given to the fact that the railway Administration concerned has in most of the Railway Stations of the country employed Railway Parcel Porters on regular and permanent basis, and Railway Stations left out without such porters are hardly a few, we have thought it most just and appropriate to issue the following directions to the respondent - Union of India and its Railway Administration. Units :
(1) That the Unit of the Railway Administration having control over the Railway Stations where the petitioners in the present writ petitions are doing the work of Railway Parcel Porters on contract labour should be absorbed permanently as regular Railway Parcel porters of those Stations, the number to be so appointed being limited to the quantum of work which may become available to them on a personal basis.
(2) When the petitioners in the writ petitions or any of them are appointed as Railway Parcel Porters on Permanent basis, they shall be entitled to get from the dates of their absorption the minimum scale of pay or wages and other service benefits which the regularly appointed Railway Parcel Porters are already getting.
3. The Units of Railway Administration may absorb on permanent basis only such, of those Railway Parcel Porters (petitioners) working in the concerned Railway Stations on contract labour who have not completed the superannuation age of 58 years.
4. The Units of Railway Administration are not required to absorb on permanent basis such of the contract labour Railway Parcel Porters (Petitioners) who are not found medically fit for such employment.
5. That the absorption of the petitioners in the writ petitions or a regular and permanent basis by the Railway Administration as Railway Parcel Porters does not disable the Railway Ad-ministration from utilising their MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 25 services for any other manual work of the Railway depending upon its needs.
6. In the matter of absorption of Railway Parcel Porters on contract labour as permanent and regular Railway Parcel Porters, the persons who have worked for longer periods as contract labour shall be preferred to those are put in shorter period of work.
7. The report dated August 31, 1993 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) can be made the basis in deciding period of contract labour work done by them in the Railway stations. Further, as far as possible, the Railway Stations where the writ petitioners are working should be the places where they could be absorbed on permanent and regular basis and the information available in this regard in the report dated August 31,1993 of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, could be utilised for the purpose.
8. The absorption and regularisation of the petitioners in the writ petitions, who could be appointed as permanent Railway Parcel Porters shall be done according to the terms indicated above and on such other terms to which they may be subjected to according to the rules or circulars of the railway Board as expeditiously as possible, not being later than six months from today, those who have put in longer periods of work as Railway Parcel Porters on contract labour getting preference in the matter of earlier appointment."
The directions given by the Supreme Court, if read carefully, would leave absolutely no doubt that in direction no.1 the Supreme Court held that where the petitioners are doing the work of Railway Parcel Porters on contract labour they should be absorbed permanently as regular Railway Parcel Porter of those stations. In Direction no.2 the Supreme Court clearly held that on appointment as Railway Parcel Porter on permanent basis the petitioners shall be entitled to get from the dates of their absorption the minimum scale of pay or wages and other service benefits, which the regularly appointed Railway Parcel Porters are already getting.
The appointment letter of the respondent no.1 dated 7.12.2008 nowhere mentions that the respondents were being appointed as regular Group-D railway employee in the month of July, 1997 as "Substitute". Rather they were being appointed as regular, screened and empanelled Group-D railway employee in compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court after screening and empanelment with all benefits and privileges. The only question was with regard to change of their status from Substitute Parcel Porter for which it is stated that action is being taken. Thus, we have no doubt in our mind, that even as far back as 1997 when the respondents were appointed as Group-D railway employee,their appointment was MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 26 against existing permanent posts as the appointment letter does not indicate otherwise and the only question which remained was with regard to their designation. Merely because the Railway Administration chose to declare them as Parcel Porters by letter dated 10.12.2010, it cannot be said that the petitioners had not been appointed after screening and empanelment against permanent Group-D posts in 1997 itself. It is not the case of Railway Administration that the respondents were appointed against supernumerary posts. The petitioners-Railway Administration in their supplementary counter reply also, filed before the Tribunal, have only stated that the decision was taken for redesignation of 284 posts of Group- D as Parcel Porter on 10.12.2010 and, therefore, it is not correct to say that 284 posts of Parcel Porter have been created w.e.f 10.12.2010. Posts in Group-D were always existing and the question was only one of redesignation of posts as Parcel Porter and once the respondents had been screened, empanelled and appointed against Group-D posts in 1997, the question of their further absorption on the post of Parcel Porter as stated in para-4 of the counter reply before the Tribunal, does not arise. This was only a case of redesigatnion of the posts and not one of creation of new post and, therefore, when the posts are redesignated, the respondents will be entitled to carry the designation from the date of their initial appointment i.e. July, 1997 as it is not disputed by the petitioners-Railway that prior to their appointment on regular basis after screening and empanelment in Group -D they were already working as Substitute Railway Parcel Porter.
It will also be relevant to mention here that today itself another writ petition was filed as a fresh case being Writ Petition No.20801 of 2013, Union of India and others vs. Karan Singh and others. This writ petition has also been filed by the North Central Railway, Allahabad. In para 9 of the said writ petition again it has been reiterated that there were 212 posts of Parcel Porter for Allahabad Division out of which services of 143 were regularized as per direction given by the Supreme Court in writ petition no.711 of 1995 and 568 of 1995 in the year 1997 itself and 69 posts remained unfilled. It is also stated that 34 of those persons, however, could not be regularized due to paucity of posts.
These averments only confirm our findings noted above that the respondents had been regularized against existing Group-D posts after screening and empanelment with all benefits and privileges and therefore in a matter pertaining to the same Railway Division namely NCR, Allahabad, the petitioners-Railway Administration in the present writ petition cannot take a stand other than what has been taken by them in Writ petition no.20801 of 2013. For reasons stated above, we do not find MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 27 any merit in the writ petition and same is, accordingly, dismissed. Dt.16.4.2013".
15. Annexure No. 10 of the OA clearly reveals that respondents in compliance of this Tribunal's order dated 16.5.2011 passed in OA NO. 104 of 2010 and affirmed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, services of the applicants of that OA were redesignated/regularized w.e.f their date of joining in GP - Rs.1800/-. For example details of few Parcel Porter are reproduced as below:-
S.No. Name Father's PF No. Date of Date of station name appointment regularization
1. Yad Ram Deo Jeet 04981212 2.7.1997 2.7.1997 ETW
2. Dharma Jeet Babu Ram 04901224 2.7.1997 2.7.1997 ETW
3. Anar Singh Balram 04901205 2.7.1997 2.7.1997 ETW
4. Dinesh Ram Kishan 04901297 2.7.1997 2.7.1997 ETW Kumar
5. Jai Singh Chunni Lal 04901303 2.7.1997 2.7.1997 ETW
13. It further appears that after implementation of the direction given in the OA No.104 of 2010, present applicants approached before this Tribunal through OA No. 370 of 2020, which was decided on 20.08.2020 with the direction to the respondents to decide the comprehensive representations moved by the applicants in time bound manner. It is also evident from the record that in compliance of the direction given in the aforesaid OA as well as OA No. 537 of 2020 impugned orders have been passed by the respondents negating the reliefs claimed by the applicants observing that "there is no discrepancy in implementation of the judgment in the two cases by the railway now and therefore, I find that the request of Shri Kallan Prasad and 102 others for giving absorption since 1997 does not hold grounds and is not tenable." It has also been observed in the impugned orders that permanent regular absorption to the aggrieved was to be given with prospective effect.
14. Admittedly while applicants' services have been regularized/absorbed permanently, absorption have not been given MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 28 effect to from the date of initial engagement rather absorption has been made from the date of the order of regularization has been passed as would be clear from Annexure CA-2. For example case of applicant No.1 is reproduced as he is in the list at Serial No. 1, date of birth is 10.03.1962, date of absorption is dated 12.10.2007.
Nothing is mentioned in this chart the initial date of engagement whereas in compliance of the direction given in the OA No. 104 of 2010, services of the applicants of that OA were redesignated and a chart was prepared as is annexed as Annexure No. 10 in which one Yad Ram is shown at serial No. 1, whose initial date of appointment is shown as 2.7.1997 and date of regularization was redesignated w.e.f. 2.7.1997 itself. Similar is the position in respect of other Parcel Porters contained in this list. Applicants' case is that they were initially engaged around 1997 to 1998. If the ratio laid down by this Tribunal in OA NO. 104 of 2010 affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in writ petition No.65108 of 2011 is taken into consideration in light of submission raised across the bar and same is compared with the facts of the present matter, we are of the view that applicants' case is also identical to the facts of the OA No. 104 of 2010. For better appreciation of fact, stand taken by the respondents in para 28 of the counter affidavit is also reproduced below:-
"28. That the content of paragraph No.4.29 of the original application is not admitted as stated and hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.07.1996 in case of National Federation of Railway Parcel Porter Union vs Union of India and others along with order of this Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad dated 16.05.2011 and 16.04.2013 in the case of Shri Dayanand Gupta and others for regularizing Shri Daya Nand Gupta and others from 1997 has parity with the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 22.08.2003".
15. If respondents themselves are admitting that regularization of the applicants of OA No. 104 of 2010 are in line with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, thus, how at this stage in the case of the applicants they can say that effect of the MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 29 direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by Hon'ble High Court and the Tribunal will be prospective. Respondents have wrongly interpreted the dictum given by the Tribunal, Hon'ble High Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. They ought to have given parity to the applicants also in line with the direction given in the OA No. 104 of 2010. Respondents have discriminated the applicants on an irrational basis which is violative of provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
16. On close scrutiny of entire facts and circumstances of the case and stand taken by the respondents themselves when they have implemented the direction given in OA NO. 104 of 2010, we are also of the view that applicants are also entitled to the same reliefs. Respondents must have absorbed/regularized services of the applicants w.e.f. from initial engagement as had been done in the case of the applicants of the OA No. 104 of 2010. Thus, applicants' case is squarely covered with the law laid down by the Tribunal in OA No. 104 of 2010 and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in writ 'A' No.65108 of 2011, OA is liable to be allowed.
17. Accordingly, OA is allowed. Impugned orders dated 14.12.2020 and 17.12.2020 are hereby quashed and respondents are hereby directed to give benefit to the applicants of present OA also in line with the direction given in the OA No. 104 of 2010 decided on 16.05.2011. This exercise must be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. All associated MAs are disposed of.
(MOHAN PYARE) (JUSTICE OM PRAKASH -VII)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Manish
MANISH
KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA