Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs K.Chinnappaiyan on 23 November, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2009
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MIR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF, E'
AND T T
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTIOE vLS,SABHAIIIT'A' " " V
WRIT PETITION NO.3245i';'2oo9 '{S_-:<:A'_I*.;
BETWEEN _A
1. THE DIVISIONAL PERS--OE~'NE--L Q.PFI<:_ER;«.%
PERSONNEL BRANCH SBC,' ' V ' V .
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,' A
BANGALORE mg 56!.) 023. "
2. THEKENIONINDIAH _ _
REP. BY ITS GEH.ERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH 'WESTERN R}AIL'wAY;"
HUELI--58o020._ ' " PETITIONERS
(BY SR1 «1i:)EVEADAS,V"S1%?.¢ ADV. A/w SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI
I-'FOR. M/ 'MAYA MITRA ADVOCATES)
AND I "
SHRI.K;'.cHi:x:ii2_A.PI=iAI'3?AN,
O O' .. V . S / O (LATE) KALIAPPAN,
AGED ABOUT 5-OYEARS,
_ CASUAL LABOUR, SALEM DIVN,
" I VSOUETH WES'I'E'.RN RAILWAY,
R/O. PALAIYA INDUR, INDUR POST,
* DHARMAPUR1 DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL F OR
-RECORDS IN 0.3 No. 227/2007 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT,
§""""?'~b
IQ
BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION OP'g'--THE
MATTER. QUASI-I THE ORDER OF CAT, BANGALORE
DTD. 06.05.09 IN O.A. NO. 227/2007 VIDE ANNEX-:'A;"-AND..
DISMISS O.A. No. 227/2007 FILED BY THE RESPON§)ENf'f~..AN_Q
ETC .
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING UP.....z?oR .oéoE:§si""T'H'1s't-o_V
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED TI-IE FOLL:OWI_NG=.;~V_p 5
'~~V.. A
(Delivered by P.D.Dina_l:{aran,_pC.J ~
This writ petition is ;the""lT,}:iy:i'si.onal Personnel
Officer, South Western Raiv].way::'an--d' 'vanot_he'r;"respondent in
Original Application of the Central
Adrr1in1strat;'.ylellV_v'lArib:'.;n.g;i.O(heirs-iVna.fterW'referred to as 'CAT')
Bangalore Bench, aggrieved by the order
dated oefesgzooe V-:yyherein,l..l.. the CAT has allowed the
'grantedlllllthe prayer of the applicant by
directing; No.1---the first appellant herein to
C'V.rcvornplete'~..the__v'exercise of absorption of Ex.CL's against the
7§'v.Clroup 'D' posts in the manner explained in
of the order within a period of three months
from date of receipt of a copy of the order.
,_ fl
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 Court
No.29'767/2009, wherein this Court, byte lgieaefled: seeders rietepq
18* November 2009 has disposed _of the said
the said writ petition it is observedas'hereunder':
"IO. The scrutiny of méiterilaljonyllvrecord
clearly show that date lofhlbirthloif vifggsppndente
applicant ':b\éio.re.__the is 25/ 12/ 1955 and
he was was casual labour on
16 /8 / 19i*z9,hh - V'l'hei'..vrnaterial on -record would
furt§heri'shoWV"t'hatv_even as per the intimation sent
petitionelrw herein, the name of the
viiasvilshown in the live register when the
tiras sent on 22 / 17/ 2003 as per
Annezxifi.re.'{A--3' annexed to the application. It is
c1,early*'stated that the name of the applicant is
available in the live/ supplementary register and
._ V he has been already asked to attend for screening
"on 30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at Railway
institute, Bangalore. Further contents of
Annexure 'A-5' would clearly show that in the list
of Casual Labourers eligible candidates are
entered in the live register and the name of l
applicant has also been shown. Further, theffact.
that applicant had been called formscreening-..:forl"'i
absorption of casual labourers and that jhis name'
has been found in the live registerlis not disputed '
by the applicant. I-ioweveiyrltltie earlie1~_pVAlette'rs"'
Annexures 'A-1' to 'A-3' were___car1ce7£led since_
educational qualificatiolihad been..._pre'sc_ribed for
absorption, it is not relevantffor vipt1r'1.3ose of
absorpition-land vi}é§;uid"'ari-se only 'in case of initial
appointment.. l l A"
11; ~._pThe inaterial"----.onl record would clearly
show that there' no rnlerit in the contention of
«.,_Athe':p_jpetitioner that------the applicants were called for
»s:creeni.ngyon1y___for the purpose of preparing fresh
"'1i_ve-'.__1jegister asthe intimation would fairly show
as '--.._refe.i're_d!' to above that the name of the
lgapplicant had already been entered in the live
regisyterland he had been called for absorption of
°c..as1;ial labourers. T he only ground upon which
i ..._the petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of
the applicant for absorption is age limit. It is
clear from the Railway Board Master Circular
No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as fo11oWs:~
"At the time of screening of casual..~~~--. '* H' 'V
labour relaxation in age should be
automatic if it is established that in
individual was within the prescribed age"7]
limit and had been more oriless_Aregu'larl;y' "
working. In old cases, wfterentlie age
limit was not observed,' relaxation of age . V' i
should be considered-_,_sympa"thetically.
The CPOs, DRMS and the i '-Chief .5
Engineers (Const_ruction_l. -are V competent' ta "
grant the relaxatioftin age", ~
12. The fact that Chief
Engineers {Cort'str_uctib_n)§ are to grant
re1axati0n'm.a5-fie "no't.dispute'd* the petitioner.
Further, "the 'fact that the case of
the applicant beforeAithe"'--Tribuna1 is for absorption
and not forkinitiaihfapfaoifitment. What is required
.__to be?considerediiisas'to whether the appointment
~01"-c_asual.%1abour was within the prescribed age
"'Eim-lit .W11e11_ 17r'1i'tia11y recruited as a casuai labour
anci44__the.~fa_:<it.* that when the petitioner was initially
iggerlgagedias a casual iabour, he was within the age
iii..:s'..linn:1it_.gWais not disputed as the date of birth of the
agpiieant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is
"j 16/8/ 1979. The applicant has also
substantiated before the Tribunal that though his
. xi
name was found in the register he was not
engaged and persons who were junior to .;.
the list were engaged and therefore, the '
after detail consideration of:-'the-.ahove.
material on record has held that=the'_'_application it A
the applicant for ab.sorptionfl_
erroneously and issued directioris to
exercise of absorption. of - Labourers
against the available" posts in the
manner explained in :1.6'as=cull'ed;above.
13. the above said facts of
the czise;itheivfcvircnular.issued the petitioner and
Master._Circular~No@48_:"and_. also having regard to
the fact that mat.erl_al= record clearly show that
nazneof the applicant had already been included
inglivevr. pregisHte'r""and his application has been
' the ground of age and absorption
has.been~.,_de'clined only on the ground of age,
which is clearly erroneous and contrary to the
circuiarjissued by the petitioner as referred to
iiaboye. H The Tribunal has issued direction as
'iinpugned in this writ petition. That having regard
the above said material on record, we are
satisfied that the finding of the Tribunal is
justified and does not suffer from any error or
illegality as to cail for interference in exercise of
the writ jurisdiction of this Court and accordingly,
we hold that the writ petition is devoid of
and pass the following-
ORDER
The writ petition is disiiiissedi'
4. Hence, foliowing the finding rendered in Petition No.29'76'7 / 2009 (disposedc:.V:i"of or; 1_8'.»I as V referred to supra, this wi:"i.1;_ petitionijé isj"t'.a1so iiabie to be dismissed. No order as to costs. sci:/~ Chief Iustice Sd/ -
JUDGE ._ - Yesj N o it < Web' I:Iost:_AYes/N0