Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs S.Shivalingam on 23 November, 2009
Author: P.D. Dinakaran
Bench: P.D. Dinakaran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT :SANGALOR1A:,_':"'H._V_
DATED THIS TI-IE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2:369.' .»_. A'
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, _ , T
AND, _ V
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'rIcE:"v,G.smH_AHI:r
WRIT PETITION,NO.3236'8/SO99{S-CAT)"
BETWEEN ._
1. THE DIVISIONALPERSONNEL O'PPjIcER,
PERSONNEL BRANCH SEC,
SOUTH WESTERI'i RAILWAY;._
BANGALORE -550 0:23. ,-
2. THE U'N1ON1OP"--1N«I)IA, _ -
REP. BY. ITS GE.NERAL"MAPIA§3ER,
SOUTH WESTERN R"A1Lw'Ay,'
I-IUBLI~--580.,020, ' PETITIONERS
(BR SR1. j3EvAD,A,S, SR,"AD.V.«'A/W SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI
FOR /Sf' NYAY,A2\«IITRA ADVOCATES)
AND' V' ' %
- SHRI S'; ,SRIvALI.NOA:M,
"~S;'O K. SUBRAM/_xN--1AN,
AGED ABOIJTHAS YEARS,
.. _, CASUAL 'LABOUR, SBC DIVN,
_ .,S'OU'JfH WESTERN RAILWAY,
'~._R/.O;« ea/.45S_, KOLAIYAMMAN KOVIL
. STREET, 'I'ALAVAI PATTI POST,
g"SALEM EDISTRICT - 636 302. RESPONDENT
5' THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN O.A. No. 467/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT, BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION OI~?"'1vT1IE..A' MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, EANOALOR;E*«--BEN__CH___ DTD 06.05.09 IN O.A. NO. 467/2007 VIDE ANNEX--A AN-D DISMISW 0- O.A. NO. 467/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ANDV1'ETC--._;'~ _ THIS WRIT PETITION COMING U25 I«*ORORI:>'ER'S,_ DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE F'OLL'OWING:'-- oRnERf (Delivered by. .) This Writ petition is filed' Personnel Officer, South WeSvteI.~ni_' respondent in Original App_licationv."No:.:4-6'f,(:2Q,Q7 [on the file of the Central AdministrativeTribimal'"..:(11ei*einafter referred to as 'CAT') Bangalore.{iBer1chI Bangalolire, being aggrieved by the order cilia:/53 _QF6.0SC.??..OFi(4)"9._ wherein, the CAT has allowed the appli'CatiO_nCA the prayer of the applicant by directingF"'the----V:respondent No.1--the first appellant herein to exercise of absorption of I:1'.x.CL's against the F.".'*.._Vav.ailaIa:le Group 'D' posts in the manner explained in 5"
paragraph----16 of the order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent "
3. The challenge made in this writ petition the one raised and considered by this iCourt No.29767/2009, wherein this Court, bv'.a}'1.etai1ed {ietee1* . 1831 November 2009 has disposed"--of"the In the said writlpetition itiifis' o:b'se1'vedu_las' hereunder:
"10. The' itnaterial on record would clearly that'_dia_te'of' birth of the respondent- appiieem beforelithepifribunal is 25 / 12 / 1955 and initially engaged as casual labour on ~L'_',.The material on record would .i'e1prther.lsiiir;:vv' that even as per the intimation sent petitioner herein, the name of the applicant was shown in the live register when the intirnation was sent on 22/ 7/ 2003 as per llinnexure 'A-3' annexed to the application. it is "clearly stated that the name of the applicant is available in the live / supplementary! register and he has been already asked to attend for screening on 30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at Railway Institute, Bangalore. Further contents Annexure '.A-5' would clearly show that in th'e§i_list'i'- 'T ' of Casual Labourers eligible is entered in the live register and[thie"Iia_n:e of applicant has also been shown. theiplfacti that applicant had been called" for"screeningi{forVV absorption of casual labourerisgthat' has been found in the live not disputed by the applicant. I-Iow_e'ver,, letters Annexures 'A--lf'to 'A;s3"'were"cancelled"since the educational hadiiiibeen prescribed for absorption', for the purpose of absorption! andllivould only in case of initial app~;)'intment.~-. Z it The i"rr1ate'rial on record would clearly ' show is no merit in the contention of ii the.,petiti_oneif"that the applicants were called for screen.i'n'g»o'n1y for the purpose of preparing fresh live register as the intimation would fairly show asiiifireferred to above that the name of the 'applicant had already been entered in the live " "register and he had been called for absorption of casual labourers. The only ground upon which the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of V K the applicant for absorption is age limit. clear from the Railway Board Master Circ'u:lari.tVlV:
No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as .follows:~;' M it "At the time of screening of casual.
labour relaxation in page "should be . automatic if it is established that the individual was within the,prescnbed'ag'e limit and had been more__or-.less regularly V. working. In old' 'cases; wlriere*.the age limit was not obseruepd, re%_l'axat'ion"o_f age should be considered i'V'sympat'liejtic'a,lly. The cpos, prams} and, the "Chief Engineers'{Qbnstruc:tia~h) 'are Competent to grant. reIl_a,ra'tion in age"); .
12. The" rain; thijit Capos, o'Riii"5 and the Chief Engineers '(Constr1:iction)""'ar'e' competent to grant relaxationpginade is.not'disputed by the petitioner.
Further, having' regard to the fact that the case of theapzplicant beforetthe Tribunal is for absorption ' and.no_t'for, initial appointment. What is required tobe is as to whether the appointment of ""«cas1;£al.VAlabour was Within the prescribed age limit " when initially recruited as a casual labour " and-.the fact that when the petitioner was initially Ziengiaged as a casual labour, he was within the age " -"limit was not disputed as the date of birth of the applicant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is on 16/8/1979. The applicant has also substantiated before the Tribunal that though his name was found in the register he was not engaged and persons who were junior to .;. the list were engaged and therefore, the .4 after detail consideration of ' ;the"above.y material on record has held that the séllipplicatioiilpof " is the applicant for abs'or'ption "is V erroneously and issued directions to cor'np_eele'te the exercise of absorption'~~..of Labourers against the available in the manner explainedin otztiabove.
' the above said facts of the case,'*--t.he circular issued by the petitioner and Master tCircular"No.4V8 and also having regard to «...Athve§:._fac,te».thvat material on record clearly show that inarrze applicant had already been included HthevV'liite--__register and his application has been rejeotecl" on the ground of age and absorption has been declined only on the ground of age, is clearly erroneous and contrary to the circular issued by the petitioner as referred to "above. The Tribunal has issued direction as impugned in this writ petition. That having regard to the above said material on record, we_NareVu'f7s. satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal ' justified and does not suffer froth illegality as to call for interferehce jefiereise. the writ jurisdiction of this Courtand._accord_ihgvly*, V we hold that the writ petivti--c)_i*'1"~.V_iMs devQid.VoI*,rrieVri't"' and pass the following: --
The Writ Petitiiént
4. Hence,; tliigsjii~:.d_ii'ig"'rendered by us in Writ Petition No.s2976?~s;.r2deas (disposed""so'1"': on 18-11-2009), as referred to tsulpra', is also liable to be dismissed. Acclordirigly-,._ 'dismissed. No order as to costs. . Yes/No i7d"Sn§/ Web 'Host: Yes / No