Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Krishan Awtar vs M/O Railways on 8 April, 2022
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(1)
Central Administrative Tribunal
Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
O.A. Nos. 526/2012, 51/2013, 499/2013, 578/2013,
492/2015, 36/2016, 40/2016, 61/2016 with MA
No.234/2020, 64/2017, 71/2017 with MA
No.63/2019, 333/2017, 424/2017, 46/2018,
47/2018, 119/2018, 120/2018, and 516/2018.
Reserved on:29.03.2022
Pronounced on:08.04.2022
Hon'ble Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Member (A)
Hon'ble Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
O.A. No. 526/2012
1. Krishan Awatar Singh s/o Shri Prithvi Singh, aged about
28 years, r/o Vill. Ralawata, via Kachor Distt. Dausa.
2. Pawan Kumar s/o Shri Vishnu Ram, aged about 28
years, r/o Vill. & Post 29-B.B, Tehsil Padampur, Distt.
Sri Ganganagar.
3. Shiv Dayal Gupta s/o Shri Ghanshyam, aged about 37
years, r/o c/o Krishan Avtar Gupta, Lecturer in Political
Science, Ashok Nagar-1, Behind Roy Nursing Home,
Agra Road, Dausa (Rajasthan).
4. Suresh Chand Meena s/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, aged
about 34 years, r/o Vill. Ram Singhpura, Tehsil & Distt.
Dausa.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Sharma)
Vs.
1. The Union of India, through General Manager, North -
Western Railway, Jaipur, Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur, Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
....Respondents.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(2)
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 51/2013
1. Santosh Kumar Sharma s/o late Shri Narainji Sharma,
aged about 37 years, r/o Gram Post Peechupada Khurd,
Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
2. Khem Chand Patwa s/o Shri Girvar Prasad Patwa, aged
about 28 years, r/o Kund Mohalla, Jhalaniyon ki Gali,
Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar.
3. Man Singh s/o Shri Ram Karan Meena, aged about 37
years, r/o Village Kandoli, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar.
4. Nand Kishore Gupta s/o Shri Rewar Mal Gupta, aged
about 35 years, r/o Gram Post Tunga, Tehsil Bassi,
District Jaipur.
5. Sandeep Kumar s/o late Shri Bhagwan Swaroop
Kulshrestha, aged about 37 years, r/o c/o H.K.
Kullshrestha, 55/222, Rajat Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur.
6. Prasadi Lal s/o Kalyan Sahai Meena, aged about 28
years, r/o Village Khairiya ki Dhani, Bhozwara, Tehsil
Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
7. Girish Kumar Patwa s/o late Shri Radhey Shyam Patwa,
aged about 29 years, r/o Kund Mohalla, Jhalaniyon ki
Gali, Rajgarh, Distt. Alwar.
8. Sumit Khandelwal Is/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about
25 years, r/o Plot No. 19, Everest Vihar, Nirman Nagar,
Jaipur.
9. Harsai Meena s/o Shri Prabhati Lal Meena, aged about
29 years, r/o Village Bhawati, Post Bhawata, The.
Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
10. Radhey Shyam Sharina s/o Shri Govind Narain Sharma,
aged about 33 years, r/o House No. 440, K.G.B. ka
Rasta, IInd Crossing, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
11. Mahendra Kumar s/o Shri Ranglal Meena, aged about
27 years, r/o Village Khairiya ki Dhani, Bhozwara,
Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
12. Ashok Chakradhari s/o Shri Buddha Ram Chakradhar,
by caste Kumhar, aged about 31 years, r/o Village
Hingotiya, Tehsil Dausa, Distt. Dausa.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(3)
13. Mukesh Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Ramakant Sharma,
aged about 37 years, r/o Village Gudhaliya, Tehsil
Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
14. Pappu Ram Meena s/o Shri Umrao Meena, aged about
32 years, r/o Village Joonwalon ki Dhani, Baswa,Tehsil
Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
15. Ram Bhajan s/o Shri Motilal, aged about 30 years, r/o
Village Bhawati, Post Bhawata, Tehsil Baswa, Distt.
Dausa.
16. Om Prakash s/o Shri Gopal Lal Meena, aged about 28
years, r/o Village Gudhliya, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
17. Kalu Ram s/o Shri Sukh Lal, aged about 28 years, r/o
Village Gudhliya, Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
18. Manoj Kumar Dangayach s/o Shri Prahlad Rai, aged
about 36 years, r/0 86, Shilp Colony, Gali No. 2,
Jhotwara, Jaipur.
19. Mukesh Nagar s/o Shri Ramphool Nagar, aged about 28
years, r/o Village Thala ka Bas, Badiyal Khurd,
Tehsil Baswa, Distt. Dausa.
...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
1. The Union of India, through General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur, Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Office of General Manager,
North Western Railway, Jaipur, Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 499/2013
1. Gajanand Sharma S/o Shri Jagdish Narain Sharma,
aged about 30 years, R/o C/o House No. 4440 KGB Ka
Rasta, IInd Cross, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(4)
2. Giriraj Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Nathulal Sharma, aged
about 37 years, R/o Village Ramsar Palawal (Bairogya
Ki Dhani), Post Jeetawal, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
3. Mohanlal Sharma S/o Gyarsilal Sharma, aged about 31
years, R/o Village Geelawala, Post Naila, Via Kanota,
Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
4. Kalu Ram Sharma S/o Late Shri Govind Narain Sharma,
R/o Village Dayoda Choar, Post Naila, Via Kanota,
Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
5. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Sitaram Sharma, aged
about 31 yars, R/o Village Chawand Ka Mand (Khemka
Ki Dhani), Post Saipura, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Jaipur.
6. Madan Lal Sharma S/o Shankar Lal Sharma, aged
about 28 years, R/o Village & Post Kuthada, Tehsil
Bassi, District Jaipur.
7. Shankar Lal S/o Shri H.B. Sharma, aged about 34
years, R/o C/o House No. 4440 KGB Ka Rasta, IInd
Cross, Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
8. Deendayal Sain S/o Shri Chhitarma Sain, aged about
28 years, R/o House No. 54, Gajanand Vihar,
Meenawala, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
9. Shailendra Kumar S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Sharma,
aged about 33 years, R/o village Kahrai, Post
Pratappura, Tehsil Agra, District Agra (U.P.).
...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, NWR,
Headquarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Office of General Manager,
NWR, Headquarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.
...Respondents.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(5)
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 578/2013
1. Madan Lal Meena S/o Shri Bhoora Meena, aged about
35 years, R/o Village Post Gudalia Tehsil Baswa Distt.
Dausa
2. Rameshwar Prasad Meena S/o Shri Ram Karan Meena,
aged about 36 years, R/o Vill.Gothwal Ki Dhani Kolwa
Tehsil Baswa , Distt. Dausa
3. Ghanshyam Das S/o Prem Prakash aged about 42
years, R/o, B-6 Moti Nagar Kaji Mori Distt. Alwar.
4. Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Dasharath Singh R/o
Vill.Damboi Khurd, Teh. Makarana, Distt. Nagaur.
5. Brijesh Kumar S/o Kripa Narayan, aged about 32 years,
R/o 198M Railway Colony Idgah Agra.
6. Mohammad Sattar S/o Shri Noor Mohammad, aged
about 42 years, R/o C/o 46-A, Chauraha Baloo Ganj
Agra.
7. Mukesh Verma S/o Shri Tara Chand Verma, aged about
35 years, R/o House No E-44, Roop Vihar, New
Sanganer Road Sodala, Jaipur.
8. Rajesh Verma S/o Shri Tara Chand Verma, aged about
34 years, R/o House No E-44, Roop Vihar, New
Sanganer Road Sodala, Jaipur.
9. Kajod Mal S/o Shri Ramdhan Meena aged about 34
years, R/o Vill.Kali Pahadi Takroda Ki Dhani, Teh.
Dausa, Distt. Dausa.
10. Sita Ram Slo Shri Kanhiya Lal Meena aged about 32
years, RIO Vill.Kali Pahadi Takroda Ki Dhani, Teh.
Dausa, Distt. Dausa.
11. Beena Yadav D/o Shri Bansi Lal Yadav W/o Late Shri
Narendra Kumar Yadav R/o 77, Nand Puri Bais Godam
Jaipur.
...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(6)
1. The Union of India Through General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
3. The Chairman Railway Board, Ministry of Railway
Rail Bhawan New Delhi -110001.
...Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 492/2015
1. Hariom Kumhar S/o Shriya Ram Kumhar R/o Village
Pakhar, post Jaitpur via Gadi sawai ram, Tehsil
Laxhmangarh, District Alwar.
2. Dharmendra Prajapat S/o Ramkishor Prajapat Wo
Village and post Punkhar, Tehsil Alwar, District Alwar.
3. Rajesh Kumar Prajapat S/o Ram Kishor Prajapat R/o
Gram and post Punkhar, Tehsil Alwar, District Alwar.
4. Shiv Prasad Prajapat S/o Kalyan Sahay Prajapat Wo
Village Garh HimmatSingh, Tehsil Mahava, District
Dausa.
5. Chhote Lal Prajapat S/o Shrilal Prajapat R/o Village
Galakheda, post Sauker, Tehsil Khatumer, District
Alwar.
6. Hitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma R/o
Plot No. 54, Triveni Nagar, Paldi Meena, Agra Road,
Jaipur.
7. Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Babu Lal Sharma R/o
Village and post Hasampur, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
District Sikar.
8. Ajay Singh Rajput S/o Mohan Singh Rajput R/o Gram
Moroli, post Mohyingpura, Tehsil Sikraya, District
Dausa.
9. Sunita Jangid D/o Late Sh. Ramji Lal Jangid R/o Gram
Post Khawaraniji, Tehsil and District Dausa.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(7)
10. Pretam Singh Yadav S/o Dilip Singh Yadav IVO Gram
Golawas, post Nagal Khodiya, Tehsil Bharoad, District
Alwar.
Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Ritwik Dave for Shri Virendra Dave)
Vs.
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North -
Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager,
North Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Near
Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
....Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 36/2016
1. Ashish Sharma son of Kunj Bihari, aged about 36
years, resident of Ward No.16 opposite Saini Adarsh
Vidhya Mandir, Badiyar Road, Bandikui, District Dausa
(Rajasthan).
2. Vikram Singh Chandel son of Rajendra Singh, aged
around 42 years, resident of 109, Pawan Putra D
Colony, Sirsi Road, Panchaya Wala Jaipur.
Applicants
(By Advocate Shri Amit Mathur)
Vs.
1. The General Manager, North Western Railway,
Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. The Divisional RAILWAY Manager, North Western
Railway, Hasanpura, Near Old Power House, Jaipur.
....Respondents.
(By Advocate Shri Anupam Agarwal)
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(8)
O.A. No. 40/2016
1. Madan Lal Saini son of Ghabloo, aged about 32 years,
resident of51, Gajanand Vihar, Sirsi Road,
Meenawala Jaipur. (Rajasthan).
2. Rafi Mohammad son of Chand Khan, aged around 30
years, resident of90, Krishna Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
3. Heera Lal son of Ram Dayal, aged around 30 years,
resident of90, village and post Sanglia, losad, Sikar.
4. Rajesh son of Natthu, aged around 33 years, resident
of 324/A OLD UDA Ki CHAKKI, Sirsa, Haryana.
..Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri Amit Mathur)
Versus
1. The General Manager, North Western Railway,
Jagatpura Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. The Divisional RAILWAY Manager, North Western
Railway, Hasanpura, Near Old Power House, Jaipur.
...RESPONDENTS
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
OA No.61/2016
1. Ku. Manju Kumari D/o Shri Jagdish Prasad R/o Qtr. No.
D-17, Sector-3RDB, Khetri Nagar, Tehsil Khetri, Post-
Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj .).
2. Ku. Silochana Kumari D/o Jagdish Prasad R/o Tehsil
Khetri, Post Khetri Nagar, District Jhunjhunu.
3. Kamal Kumar Meena S/o Bhanwar Lal Meena R/o
Village & Post Dabri Dheer Singh Via-Mandrella, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri N.P.Yogi for Shri Sumit Khandelwal)
VERSUS
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(9)
1. The General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur
Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager
North Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur. ...Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
OA 64/2017
1. Rakesh Kumawat S/o Shri Tarachand Kumawat, aged
about 26 years, R/o Kanhiya Sweet Caters, Link Road,
Bagru, District Jaipur.
2. Ramji Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Tarachand Kumawat, aged
about 25 years, R/o Kanhiya Sweet Caters, Link Road,
Bagru, District Jaipur.
3. Santosh Kuamr Sharma S/o Shri Ram Sahay Sharma ,
aged about 33 years, R/o Village Dayoda Choar, Post
Nail a, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaiur--303012.
4. Ram Swaroop Sharma S/ o Shri Mahadev Sharma,
aged about 30 years, R/o Village Dayoda Choar, Post
Nail a, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaiur--303012.
5. Mukesh Sharma S/o Ram Prasad Sharma aged about
20 years, R/ o Village Dayoda Chod (Mandod Ki Dhani)
Tehsil Bassi/ District Jaipur-303012.
6. Buddhi Prakash S/o Shri Ramawtar Sharma aged about
23 years, R/o Village Choup, Post Choup, Via Moraji,
Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan) --303805.
7. Rakesh Sharma S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, aged
about 23 years, R/o Village & Post Sarangpur (Bad Ke
Balaji), Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
8. Babu Lal Sharma S/o Shri Kanhiya Lal age 22 years,
R/o Huse No. 4440, K.G.B. Ka Rasta, Second Chouraha,
Johari Bazar, Jaipur.
9. Indra Raj Sharma S/o Shri Kajod Mal Sharma, age 26
years, R/o 1617, Jodla Kua Ki Dhani, Bassi, Tehsil
Bassi, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(10)
10. Paramjeet Naga, Shri Lalaram, age 22 years, R/o No
214 , Shiv Vihar Colony, Meena Wala, Sirsi Road,
Manna Ki Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
11. Rajesh Kumawat S/o Shri Gopal Lal Kumawat, R/o
Kumawat Motors, Bajri Mandi Road, Ajmer Bai Pass,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
...Applicants
(By Advocate Shri R.K.Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Chief Personnel Officer O/o Head Quarter Office, North
Western Railway Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura,
Jaipur.
....Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 71/2017
1. Shri Prem Prakash Sharma S/o Shivcharan Lal Sharma
Aged about 34 years R/o ward No. 3, Parashar Colony
Near Railway Station, (Hanipurwale) Kherli Rail, Tehsil
Kathumar, Alwar.
2. Arun Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Kailash Chand Sharma
Aged about 35 years R/o ward No. 3, Parashar Colony
Near Railway Station, (Hanipurwale) Kherli rail, Tehsil
Kathumar, Alwar.
3. Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shri Kishore Lal Sharma
Aged about 36 years R/o Village Lalpur Post Unch,
Tehsil Nadbai, Bharatpur.
4. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Shri Ramji Lal Sharma Aged about
37 years R/o Plot No. 11, Mitr Colony, Sirsi Road,
Khatipura Jaipur.
5. Vinay Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramji Lal Sharma Aged
about 35 years R/o Plot No. 11, Mitr Colony, Sirsi Road,
Khatipura Jaipur.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(11)
6. Surendra S/o Shri Gopal Ram aged about 34 years R/o
Village Lohrana Post Chuasala Tehsil Nawa City,
Nagaur.
7. Akhilesh Kumar Khandelwal S/o Lallu Lal Khandelwal
Aged about 37 years R.o B 138, Janta Colony, Behind S
J Public School, Jaipur.
8. Ankit Kumar Gupta S/o Shri Rajendra Kr. Gupta aged
about 35 years R/o C/o Krishna Avtar Gupta Plot No.
22, Ashok Nagar Sector-I, In front of Government PG
College, Behind Rai Nursing Home, Dausa.
... Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri N.P.Yogi for Shri Sumit Khandelwal)
Versus
1. General Manager, North Western Railway Head
Quarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personal Officer, North Western Railway Head
Quarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 333/2017
1. Chhagan Lal Saini S/o Shri Moti Lal Saini, Aged about
41 years, R/o Village Bard Vishanpura Post Kaulana Via
Bandikui Tehsil Basawa Distt. Dausa.
2. Rajkumar Saini S/o Shri Babu Lal Saini, aged about 34
years, R/o In front of Water Works new Colony, Station
Road, Rajgarh Distt. Alwar.
3. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Shri Kishan lal Saini, aged
about 33 years, R/o Dhariwal Bhawan Nichla Sonava
Near Lamba Mahadev Mandir Alwar.
4. Deepak Kumar Khandelwal S/o Shri Ram Avatar Gupta
aged about 40 years, R/o 705 Shanti Nagar in front of
Durgapura Railway Station Durgapura, Jaipur.
5. Jintendra Kumar S/o Shri Bhairu Ram, aged about 41
years, R/o Near Sabji MandiWard No. 15 Neem Ka
Thana Distt. Sikar.
... Applicants
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(12)
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.
2. Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.
... Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 424/2017
1. Bharat Prakash s/o Shri Mathura Prasa, aged about 45
years, resident of 46/62, Quarters Tata Nagar Road,
Jaipur.
2. Raghunath Ujjawal s/o Shri Ramprasad Ujjwal, aged
about 37 years, resident of Plot no. 160, Shekhawati
Nagar, Road No. 6, V.K.I., Jaipur.
3. Dinesh Kumar Hadala s/o Shri Bhorian Lal, aged about
44 years, resident of Arvind Nagar, Badaudiyaa Basti,
Station Road, Jaipur.
4. Ashok Chawaria s/o Shri Gopal Das Chawaria, aged
about 34 years, resident of Vishwkarma Colony, Tata
Nagar Road, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur.
5. Mahesh Kumar Hadala s/o Bhorianlal Hadala, aged
about 40 years, resident of Badoudiya Basti, Station
Road, Jaipur.
6. Arvind Kumar s/o Shri Madanlal, aged about 31 years,
resident of Plot No. 90, Vishwkarma Colony, 62
Quarters, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur.
7. Surendra Kumar s/o Shri Phool Chand, aged about 32
years, resident of Near Chokhi Dhani, Tonk road,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
8. Saroj Kumari D/o Shri Raju, aged about 34 years,
resident of Plot No. 351, Vedpuri Aamagarh, Agra
Road, Jaipur.
9. Kailash Kumar s/o Shri Rajkumar, aged about 32 years,
resident of Chitranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
10. Rajendra Kumar s/o Shri Tarachand, aged about 40
years, resident of Vishwkarma Colony, Shashtri Nagar,
Jaipur.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(13)
11. Dharmveer s/o Shri Gulzarilal, aged about 32 years,
resident of Jhalana Dungri, Jaipur.
12. Sonu D/o Shri Gurudayal, aged about 34 years, Gurjar
Basti, Shashtri Nagar, Jaipur.
13. Rajkumar Dhelet s/o Shri Nanagram Dhalet, aged
about 43 years, resident of Hanumaan Gali, Chandpole
Bazar, Jaipur.
14. Lalu Meena s/o Shri Bhoruram Meena, aged about 39
years, resident of village Bagru, Ajmer Road, Jaipur.
15. Bindiya Meena D/o Shri Dhuleshwar Meena, about 35
years, resident of Railway colony, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
16. Hemant Kumar s/p Shri Omprakash Dobotia, aged
about 32 years, resident of 80' Road, Mahesh Nagar,
Jaipur.
17. Jagdish Prasad s/o Shri Lakhan Singh, aged about 39
years, resident of Plot No. 58/19A, Dhoolkot, Mount
Road, Purani Basti, Jaipur.
18. Amar Rajawat s/o Shri Bala Rajawat, aged about 33
years, resident of 15, Narsingh colony, Purani Basti,
ward no. 61, Jaipur.
All above applicants applied for the post of Group D in
NWR, Jaipur.
... Applicants
(Present: None)
Versus
1. The Union of India through General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jagatpura Road, Malviay Nagar,
Jaipur.
2. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Western
Railway, Hasanpura, Near Old Power House, Jaipur.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 46/2018
1. Deepak Kumar Meena S/o Shri Hari Ram Meena, aged
about 26 years, R/o 191 Meena Ka Mohalla, Jeelo Via
Manonda, Neem Ka Thana, Jeelo Sikar Rajasthan-
332711.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(14)
2. Dashrath Meena S/o Shri Rohitasv ged about 20 years,
R/o Village Mothuka Post Fatehpur, Tehsil Bansur
District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
3. Praveen S/o Shri Rajender Kumar Sharma aged about
31 years, R/o Mohalla Nalapur, Narnaul, Mahendragarh,
Haryana-123001.
4. Yogesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Swami
aged about 26 years R/o Mohala Badabas, Kotputli,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303108.
5. Hans Raj Jat S/o Shri Madu Ram Jat aged about 23
years, R/o Village Mothuka Post Fatehpur, Tehsil
Bansur District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
6. Hhawa Singh Meena S/o Shri Ram Prasad Meena aged
about 31 years R/o Bye Pass Harsora Road Bansur,
District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
7. Sita Ram Meena S/o Shri Prahlad Meena aged about 29
years, R/o Village Angasar Post Abusar District
Jhunjhunu, Rajastha-333001.
8. Vijay Kumar Jat S/o Shri Ram Karan aged about 29
years, R/o Village Kalyan Nagar, Post Fatehpur, Tehsil
Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
9. Vikram Singh Jat S/o Shri Sawla Ram aged about 30
years, R/o Village Kalyan Nagar, Post Fatehpur, Tehsil
Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
10. Mahendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ratti Ram Meena
aged about 30 years R/o Village Surta Nagar,
Hamirpur, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan-
301402.
11. Bijendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Pushpendra Kumar
Yadav aged about 30 years, R/o Village and Tehsil
Bansur, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
12. Mahendra Meena S/o Shri Shambhu Dayal aged about
31 years, R/o Village Chowdhary Colony, Banswasa,
Post Singhana Tehsil Buhana District Jhunjhunu,
Rajasthan-333504.
13. Prata Singh Meena S/o Shri Ram Singh Meena aged
about 29 years, R/o Village Aangasar, Post Abusar
Tehsil and District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333001.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(15)
14. Mannu Lal Meena s/o Shri Rajpal Meena aged about 30
years, R/o Village Nandari Tehsil Sikrai District Dausa,
Rajasthan-303509.
15. Anil Kumar Nimoria S/o Shri Rohitash Nimoria aged
about 30 years, R/o Village Raikaranpura, Tehsil
Kotputli District Jaipur, Rajasthan-303105.
16. Vikky Meena S/o Shri Ramavtar Meena aged about 29
years, R/o Village and Tehsil Shahjaur District Alwar,
Rajasthan-301706.
17. Naresh S/o Shri Mahaveer Jatav aged about 29 years
R/o Village Manota Kalan, Tehsil Nagar District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321205.
18. Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Ummed Singh aged about 30
years, R/o Village MazariBhanda Tehsil Mundawar
District Alwar, Rajasthan-301427.
19. Atar Singh Saini S/o Shri Mangi Lal Saini aged about 30
years, R/o Village Doroli Tehsil Kathoomar District
Alwar, Rajasthan-321606.
20. Sahi Ram Meena S/o Shri Bhopal Singh aged about 31
years, R/o Village Godaro Ki Dhani, Ward No. 16,
Sgnore District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan-333032.
21. Ajay Kumar Jat S/o Shri Ramji Lal aged about 20 years
R/o Vilalge Mothooka Post Fatehspur Tehsil Bansoor
District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
22. Dashrath Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramji Lal Meena aged
about 31 years, R/o Mukam Post Kanwat, Meeno Ka
Mohalla Ward No. 5, Tehsil Khandela District Sikar
Rajasthan-332708.
23. Babulal Meena S/o Shri Matadeen Meena aged about 30
years, R/o Vilalge Mothooka Post Fatehpur Tehsil
Bansoor District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
24. Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Sadhu Ram Meena aged
about 30 years, R/o Village Kanwat Tehsil Khandela
District Sikar, Rajasthan-332708.
25. Ram Ratan Meena S/o Shri Sita Ram Meena aged about
24 years, R/o Mukam Post Jeelo, Tehsil Neem Ka
Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan-332711.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(16)
26. Ashok Kumar Jat S/o Shri Lakkhi Ram Jat aged about
26 years, R/o Village Mothooka Post Fatehpur Tehsil
Bansoor District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
27. Kan Singh S/o Shri Nandu Singh aged about 22 years,
R/o Village Mandookara District Nagour, Rajasthan-
341319.
28. Ajit Kumar Meena S/o Shri Shubh Ram Meena aged
about 24 years, R/o Village Mothooka Post Fatehpur
Tehsil Bansoor District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
29. Satish Kumar Meena S/o Shri Banwari Lal Meena aged
about 24 years, R/o Village girudi Naya Kua, Tehsil
Bansoor District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
30. Rajesh Saini S/o Shri Rameshwar Saini aged about 22
years, R/o Village Mothooka Post Fatehpur Tehsil
Bansoor District Alwar, Rajasthan-301402.
31. Amar Chand Meena S/o Shri Gokul Chand Meena aged
about 20 years, R/o Village Guwada Bhopala Tehsil
Thana Gaji, District Alwar, Rajasthan-301022.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North
Western Railway Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.
2. Chief Personnel Officer O/o General Manager, North
Western Railway Head Quarter Office Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur-302017.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No.47/2018
1. Mukesh Kumar Meena S/ o Shri Mahadev Prasad Meena
aged about 35 years, R/o Village Pi Iwa Post Chandvaji,
Tehsil Amer District Jaipur Rajasthan--303104 .
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(17)
2. Surgyan Meena S/o Shri Jagnnath Meena aged about
43 years, R/0 104, Meena Colony Chowkri Sri
Madhopur District Sikar--332706.
3. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Hanuman Prasad aged about 41
years R/o 419/1 New Sarai Narnaul Mahendragarh,
Haryana--123001.
4. Jitendar Singh Meena S/ o Shri Genda Lal Meena aged
about 35 years, R/o Village Beejwad Chauhan Tehsil
Mundawar District Alwar, Rajasthan--301401.
5. Manoj Kumar Yadav S/o shri Dharam Pal Yadav aged
about 35 years R/o Village Fusa Ki Dhani (fusapur) Post
Sarai Kala Tehsil Mundawar District Al war, Rajasthan--
301401.
6. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Ratan Lal Yadav about 35
years, R/0 134 Thakron Ka Mohalla Village Ulaheri
Tehsil Mundawar District Alwar Rajasthan--301401.
7. Surendra Kumar S/ o Shri Suraj Bhan aged about 33
years R/o Village Moondanwar Kala Tehsil Mundawar
District Alwar.
8. Siya Ram Meena S/ o Shri Soorju Meena aged about 40
years, R/o Village Indroli Tehsil Kanma District
Bharatpur Rajasthan--321022.
9. Sushil Kumar S/ o Shri Prabhu Dayal Meena aged about
32 years, R/ o Mukam Post Kanwat, Meeno Ka Mohalla
Ward No. 5, Tehsil Khandela District Sikar Rajasthan--
332708.
10. Mukesh Chand Meena s/o Shri Prathvi Raj Meena aged
about 33 years, R/ o Village Kotadi Post Talawara Tehsil
Gangapur City District Sawaimadhopur.
11. Prem Singh Meena s/o Shri Ram Singh Meena aged
about 35 years, R/o Village Angasar Abusar, District
Jhunjhunu.
12. Ram Kishore Meena s/ o Shri Nahar Mal Meena aged
about 35 years, R/o 154, Mohalla Pathwari Ka Ward No.
5, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Sharma)
Vs.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(18)
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur--302017.
2. Chief Personnel Officer, Office of General Manager,
North Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur--302017
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 119/2018
1. Mahendra Meena S/o Shri Ram Chandra aged about 44
years R/o Patel Colony Ahpehra Behind Moti Sinema,
Tehsil Kotputly, District Jaipur Rajasthan-303108.
2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Shri Devi Sahai aged about 34
years R/o Ward No. 18 Dhani Manpura Ghasipura
Kanawat Sikar Kanwal Town, Rajasthan-332708.
3. Vijay Pal Sigh S/o Shri Mana Ram aged about 37 years
R/o Ward No. 18 Dhani Manpura Ghasipura Kanawat
Sikar Kanwal Town, Rajasthan-332708.
4. Sunil Meena S/o Shri Shimbu Dayal aged about 34
years R/o Ward No. 16 Singhana Jhunjhunu Rajasthan-
333516.
5. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Banwari Lal aged about 44
years R/o Abusar, Jhunjunu 333001.
6. Pradeep Mathur S/o Shri Satya Narayan mathur aged
about 34 years R/o 230/15 Ray Jee Ka Mohalla Near By
Vikram Schoolk, Sikar Rajasthan-332001.
...Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.302017.
2. Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.302017.
...Respondents
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(19)
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
O.A. No. 120/2018
1. Devendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Mangtu Ram Yadav
aged about 26 year R/o, Village Shahpur Tehsil Bansoor
Goonta, Gunta Alwar Rajasthan-301402.
2. Ravi Kumar S/o Shri Indra Raj Singh aged about 22
years R/ o Village Gujarwas Disrict Jhunjhunu 333516.
3. Prahlad Ram S/ o Shri Deepa Ram aged about 23 years
R/ o Toshina, Deedwana, Nagour Rajasthan- 341303.
4. Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Shri Heera Lal Meena aged
about 26 years R/o Aam Ka Pura Tehsil Wazirpur Baroli
Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan- 322219.
5. Jaswant Kumar Meena S/o Shri Bhagirath Meena aged
about 26 years R/o Near Police Line Quarter No.
67 Alwar Rajasthan- 301001.
6. Manoj Kumar Meena S/o Shri Suva Lal Meena aged
about 24 years R/o Girudi Bus Stand, Tehsil Bansoor
Alwar, Rajasthan- 301402.
7. Salim Khan S/o Shri Multnn Ali ngcd about 30 years
R/o 354, Khumaron Ka Mohalln, Toshina, Didwana,
Nagour Rajasthan- 341303
8. Dashrath Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad
Sharma aged about 24 years R/o Mukam and Post
Lamgara via Chapaneri, Tehsil Bhinay District
Ajmer Rajasthan.
9. Nitesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma
aged about 22 years R/o 95, Near Thakurji Ka
Mandir, Village Samlpura Post Sadulpura via Phulera
Jaipur Rajasthan 303338.
10. Gautam Sharma S/o Shri Ram Gopal Sharma aged
about 24 years R/o F-180, Behind Gandhi Nagar Club,
Gandhi Nagar Jaipur Rajasthan 302015.
11. Rohit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma
aged about 22 years R/o Khandal Vipra Bhawan, Near
Telephone Exchange Station Road Sambhar
Jaipur Rajasthan.
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(20)
12. Shiv Raj Singh S/o Shri Dheer Singh aged about 24
years R/o Village Gavgari, Tehsil Deedwana, Nagour
Rajasthan 341319.
Applicants
(By Advocate: Shri R.K.Sharma)
Vs
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
2. Chief Personnel Officer O/o General Manager North
Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
.. Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri P.K.Sharma)
O.A. No. 516/2018
1. Ajeet Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Kailash Singh Gurjar aged
about 35 years R/o 148, Shanti Nagar Gajsinghpura
Ajmer Road Jaipur Rajasthan-302023.
2. Govind Narain Sharma S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma
aged about 40 years R/o Village Samalpura, Post
Shardulpura Via-Phulera District Jaipur-303338.
3. Sunita Devi D/o Shri Raghuveer Singh Shekhwat aged
about 37 years R/o D-6 University Campus, Near
Vivekanand Hostel Gandhi Circle Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. Ram Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Kalyan Sahai Gurjar aged
about 34 years R/o Village Sahupara Post Khutla Tehsil
Basawa District Dausa Rajasthan-303326.
5. Virendra Kumar Yogi S/o Shri Ratti Ram Yogi aged
about 33 years R/o 262/105, Sector-26 Pratap Nagar
Sanganer Jaipur Rajasthan 302033.
6. Hemraj Meena S/o Shri Ram Pal Meena aged about 35
years R/o Meenawala, Ward No. 2 Jaipur Rajasthan.
...Applicants
(All the applicants have submitted their application
form to the General Manager NWR Jaipur for
appointment.)
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs)
(21)
(By Advocate Shri R.K.Sharma)
Versus
1. Union of India through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur. 302017.
2. Chief Personal Officer, Office of General Manager, North
Western Railway, Jaipur Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur. 302017.
...Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Anupam Agarwal)
ORDER
Per: Dinesh Sharma, Member (A):
All the above listed cases are being decided with this common order since the relief claimed in all these is the same and is based on common grounds, though not entirely on common facts. The reference to papers and annexures in this order are from OA No.526/2012, unless specifically mentioned to be otherwise. These cases have been filed since the year 2012, praying for appointment as Fresh Face Substitutes (FFSs) with the respondents, following a recruitment process that was allegedly stalled since 2004, on account of a vigilance intervention that is no longer there. The claims are mainly based on the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.243/2006,dated 12.08.2010 (at Annexure R/1, hereinafter referred to as the Jodhpur case). In that decision, the Tribunal had directed (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (22) the respondents to grant appointment, as FFSs, to the applicants therein, on ground that appointments were given to some others from a list of 84 persons (at Annexure A/4, hereinafter referred to as the list of 84) prepared in the year 2004, in which the names of those applicants were also found to be included. Some of the present applicants (Applicants No.1 and 2 in OA No.36/2016 and Applicants No.1, 2 and 3 in OA No.40/2016) have claimed that their names are also included in this list of 84 (the very existence of which was denied by the respondents in their replies to RTI queries, but which was produced in the Jodhpur case), and therefore, their applications should also be considered, as they are similarly placed candidates. Other applicants have claimed that the respondents are giving appointments in an arbitrary manner, while denying these to the applicants. These applicants have supported their claims on the basis of the decision of the Jaipur Bench of this Tribunal, in OA No.347/2010, dated 27.07.2012 (at Annexure R/2 of OA No.40/2016). In this case, the applicants' claim, the Tribunal had decided to consider the applicants therein (even though they did not claim to be in the list of 84) at par with the applicants in the Jodhpur case. Since the respondents had filed a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan (Writ Petition No.10603/2010) against the decision in the Jodhpur Bench's case, the decision, in the (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (23) case before the Jaipur Bench, was made subject to the outcome of that appeal.
2. The respondents have denied the claims made in these OAs. They have cited the rules/guidelines (At Annexure A/12) regarding appointment of Fresh Face Substitutes, and stated that it was a discretionary power (now discontinued) given to the General Managers to engage persons at the lower level (Group 'D'), in the face of urgent requirements, when regular recruitment to fill vacancies was likely to be delayed. The process of selection of FFS in the year 2004 (challenged in these OAs) did not come to a fruition because of intervention by the Vigilance Wing of the Railways, which had taken all the documents relating to that process. Following that action, none of the persons considered during that process were given appointments. The respondents had challenged the decision of the Jodhpur Bench before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan and the decision of the Tribunal was already stayed (at the time of filing replies to the earlier OAs amongst those listed above). The respondents also denied any of the applicants having applied for the job of the FFS or any advertisement issued by the respondents, and have stated that the decision to appoint FFS is taken on individual files, using the discretionary powers of the General Manager. The replies also deny their (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (24) being any officially approved panel of FFS following the selection process in the year 2004. The respondents have also stated that any selection of persons, as prayed by the applicants would be violation of the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others vs. Uma Devi & Others (2006 (4) SCC 1.
3. The applicants have filed rejoinders reiterating their claims and stating that the records of their applications are with the respondents. The respondents have appointed other persons as FFSs and are still continuing appointing them, sometimes as bungalow khalasis, as a kind of back-door entry to Railway Service. The claim of the respondents about there being no approved panel is belied by what was produced before the respondents (and accepted by this Tribunal) in the Jodhpur Case.
4. There were other OAs also filed before this Tribunal (OA No.347/2010 and OA No.686/2013) claiming to be given appointment as FFSs on similar grounds. Since these two OAs of Jaipur Bench, too, mainly based their claims on earlier decision in the Jodhpur Bench's case, which, at that time, was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, these cases were disposed of with directions to apply the decision of the Jodhpur Bench to these applicants (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (25) also, subject to the outcome of the Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. (refer decisions dated 27.07.2012 in OA No.347/2010 and 22.04.2015 in OA No.686/2013).
5. The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, during the pendency of the earlier ones of these OAs, dismissed the Writ Petition against the decision of the Jodhpur Bench, by judgment dated 03.12.2015 (Annexure R/2). The respondents filed an SLP (No.37293/2019) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which stayed the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. This SLP, we are now informed, has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (a copy of the decision dated 28.03.2022 was produced at the time of arguments and is taken on record of this case).
6. The OAs were heard together, as consented by the learned counsels of all the parties to these OAs. The learned counsels for the applicants mainly based their case on the judgment of this Tribunal in the Jodhpur Bench, which, having been affirmed up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has attained finality. It was argued by Shri Amit Mathur, (learned counsel for the applicants in OA No.36/2016 & OA No.40/2016) that the respondents have behaved in a totally arbitrary manner. They have given appointment to 4 persons (from the list of 84 persons), on the basis of their (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (26) performance in a cultural event before a Minister (as mentioned in Para 6 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court taken on record at Annexure R/2), while denying it to others on ground of intervention by Vigilance Department. It is an admitted fact that the vigilance did not find any fault with the then General Manager and therefore the selection process should not have been abandoned. The decision of this Tribunal in the Jodhpur Bench, confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and now by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is a judgment in rem and, therefore, it should be applied to all persons whose names are there in the select list of 84 persons, irrespective of whether they were parties in that case or not. He also argued that the respondents have conceded in other case (where the persons were not even in the list of 84) (in OA No.347/2010) to apply the decision of the Jodhpur Bench challenged by them before the Hon'ble High Court (at that time), if their challenge before the Hon'ble High Court did not succeed. Shri Mathur also submitted copies of the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs. C. Lalitha, (2006) 2 SCC 747, K.C.Sharma and Others vs. Union of India and Others (1997) 6 SCC 721, Bompay Telephone Canteen Employees' Association, Prabhadevi Telephone Exchange vs. Union of India and Another (1997) 6 SCC 723, Inder Pal Yadav and Others vs. Union (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (27) of India and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 648 and a copy of this Tribunal's earlier order dated 27.07.2012 in OA No.347/2010. These are in support of his argument that similarly placed persons should be similarly treated, even if they did not file a case along with others. The copy of our earlier order (in OA No.347/2010) is submitted to support the argument that the respondents have already conceded the issue being identical with the decision of the Jodhpur Bench challenged by them in the higher courts.
7. Shri R.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants in other OAs (OA Nos.526/2012, 51/2013, 499/2013, 578/2013, 64/2017, 333/2017, 46/2018, 47/2018, 119/2018, 120/2018 and 516/2018) also equally forcefully argued in favour of appointment of the applicants as FFSs, since the respondents are ignoring the claims of these applicants, who applied in the year 2004, and were giving appointments to other persons, in an arbitrary fashion, in the last so many years. The learned counsel for the respondents countered these arguments by stating that the persons who had filed the case before the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the year 2006 could not be considered as similarly placed with the applicants who have filed their cases later. The appointments as FFSs are done, as the name itself suggests, to provide a fresh substitute person, to (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (28) do a job when regular selectees are not available. The process to select such substitutes in the year 2004failed to materialize due to the intervention of the vigilance at that time. Whatever might be the reasons, any direction to give appointment to the applicants as FFSs now, in the year 2022, on ground that they might have applied or might have got selected in the year 2004, would be totally unjustified. The case decided by the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal can, at best, be applicable to the parties in that case only and it cannot be applied as a judgment in rem. There is no similarity between those who had been fighting for their real or assumed rights since the year 2006 and those who have joined the fray, after seeing the outcome of the Jodhpur case. The fact of conceding any matter in any other OAs, cannot be used against the respondents to force them to make that as an everlasting concession. In any case, the respondents have not given appointment to anyone, following these decisions, from the alleged select list so far. They have disposed of the matter through speaking orders(refer order dated 06.08.2020 passed in CP Nos.15/2015 and 28/2016 - pages 127 to 136 of the Paper Book).These orders have been found to be in compliance of those orders of the Tribunal and the contempt cases have been dropped. Learned counsel of the respondents also cited and produced copies of the following judgments:
(OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (29)
1) State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others, (2015) 1 SCC 347.
2) S.S.Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2009) 2 SCC 479.
These are in support of his contention that persons who did not initially contest cannot claim similarity of treatment with those who did (State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava and Others). The other judgment (S.S.Balu and Another vs. State of Kerala and Others, is to support the contention that there is no indefeasible right to appointment just because of inclusion in a select list.
8. We have gone through the pleadings and have heard the arguments at length. We have also gone through the judgment of our co-ordinate Bench in OA No.243/2006 (the Jodhpur case), the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No.10603/2010 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.37293/2019. To put things into focus (even at the risk of oversimplification), the whole series of facts can be summarized as follows: A hand-written list of 84 persons seems to have been prepared in the year 2004 that was sent (or was proposed to be sent) to the General Manager for approval for appointment as FFSs. There was an intervention by the Vigilance Wing of the Department and no action was apparently taken on that list (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (30) (except for appointing 4 persons on the basis of their performance at a cultural fest in front of a Minister). Some of the persons in this list approached the Tribunal, by filing the Jodhpur case. On being informed about the existence of a select list, the Jodhpur Bench asked for the list to be produced (we don't understand why) in a sealed cover. Finding the names of those applicants (in that OA) in the list, the Tribunal, by its decision dated12.08.2010,directed the respondents to consider giving appointments to the applicants therein. The respondents challenged it by filing a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition by their judgment dated 31.12.2015. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has now dismissed the SLP filed against that decision by their order dated 28.03.2022. The applicants in the OAs before us want to be given appointment as FFS, since they claim their case is similar to those in the Jodhpur case and because they, too, had applied for selection in that selection process. Some of these are in the list of 84. Others, who are not, have found support to their claim on ground that this Tribunal (in decisions e.g. one dated 27.07.2012 in OA No.347/2010 at Annexure A/2) has decided to treat their cases at par with those in the Jodhpur case. We are reproducing here the operative portions of the two decisions; the decision dated 12.08.2010 in the Jodhpur case, and also the decision dated (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (31) 27.07.2012 of the Jaipur Bench, since these are, mainly, the two decisions on which all the arguments of the applicants are based on:
OA No.246/2006 (Jaipur Bench) "9. On the basis of above discussion, we find merit in this O.A. and as such the O.A. is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicants for appointment to the post of Fresh Face Substitute as per the approved list prepared by the respondents. It is further observed that the entire exercise for recruitment/appointment to the post of Fresh Face substitute as per the approved list produced before this Court, shall be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs."
OA No.347/2010 (Jaipur Bench) "6. Since the matter is pending for consideration before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed that this OA be disposed of subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition pending before the Hon'ble High Court, which has not been opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the OA has been disposed of subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition pending before the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court. It is made clear in the case order of the Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal is upheld by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court, in such eventuality, the same benefit, as has been granted by the Jodhpur Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, be extended in favour of the applicants at par with similarly situated persons. The respondents have every legal right to raise legal objection."
9. The above description may make the issues and the claims of the applicants appear weightier than what they actually are. Looked at from a perspective, the claims are (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (32) mainly arising from a hand-written note of the year 2004 (the list of 84 at Annexure A/4). This is a paper which does not have any signs(Office Title, file number, subject, communication type, seal or any such thing) normally associated with an official communication, and, therefore, we feel, it does not deserve the kind of respect that is normally due to a properly prepared and authenticated select list by a competent body. This note has been loosely referred to as an approved list or select list, but as this paper itself declares, is apparently nothing more than a note, along with a list, sent (or meant to be sent) for approval for appointment as FFSs. The applicants basing their claim on ground of being on this list have prayed for grant of appointment since the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal, in OA No.243/2006, directed the respondents to give appointment to the applicants in that OA, on finding their names on this list. We certainly cannot, and do not, intend to sit in judgment over the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal, especially when that judgment has been confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and the SLP against it has also been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, we must see whether the judgment is, as claimed by the applicants, a judgment in rem and also whether the parties claiming to be similarly placed, are really so. The applicants before us, in the OAs listed above, (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (33) can be broadly classified into two sets. In the first set are those whose names are found in the aforementioned list of 84 and are claiming similarity with the applicants in the Jodhpur case. The other set is of those, who have broadly based their claims on the orders from this (Jaipur) bench of the Tribunal, for consideration of appointment as FFSs, linking it to the outcome of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court/Supreme Court in the Writ Petition/SLP against the Jodhpur case. As far as the latter set of applicants are concerned, we have no hesitation in stating that these applicants, whose names were not there in the list of 84, cannot even remotely claim to be similarly placed as the applicants in the Jodhpur case. The claims of such applicants cannot be accepted just because in some other cases, on a concession by the respondents or otherwise, we have directed to apply the judgment of Jodhpur case (subject to the outcome in Writ Petition before the High Court/SLP before the Supreme Court). There is no such concession made by the respondents in the OAs before us. In fact, the learned counsel for the respondents has categorically submitted, at the time of arguments, that they have not given anyone appointment following these decisions, even when contempt proceedings were initiated. All these claims, where the claim for appointment is not based on any legal or fundamental right; where there is not even a proof of (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (34) advertisement seeking applications, and in most cases, of whether any application was given by any of these applicants or not; cannot be treated as claims similar to the parties who were directed to be given appointment in the Jodhpur case.
10. This leaves us with the 5 applicants (Shri Ashish Sharma and Shri Vikram Singh Chandel in OA No.36/2016 and Shri Madan Lal Saini, Shri Rafi Mohammad and Shri Heera Lal in OA No.40/2016) whose names are said to find a place in the list of 84. The learned counsel for these applicants has argued for grant of the same benefit to them as is granted to the applicants in the Jodhpur case.
According to him, it is not open for this (co-ordinate) Bench of the Tribunal to re-open the issue or to question the sanctity or validity of the list of 84. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that the decision in the Jodhpur case, even when confirmed by the Hon'ble High Court and kept undisturbed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be taken as a decision in rem, and it should apply only to the parties of that case. He also argued that the persons who did not raise an issue at the relevant time, had been sitting on the fence, and have joined the fray only after seeing the outcome of the dispute, cannot be allowed to do so. Such "fence sitters" cannot claim to be treated as similar to those (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (35) who fought for their rights. We find value in this argument of the learned counsel for the respondents. Undisputedly, these applicants did not raise any issue till the decision of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the year 2010. The earliest OA, amongst those being decided by us through this order, was filed in the year 2012, which is 6 years after the OANo.243/2006 was filed before the Jodhpur Bench and 2 years after the decision of the Jodhpur Bench. This is clearly an act of fence-sitting and such fence-sitters cannot be treated as equal to those who were fighting for what they claimed to be their rights. The claim of these persons, again, is based on a handwritten note discovered during that other litigation, and not on any visibly more sacrosanct and reliable document such as the result of a selection process by a selection Commission or Board. Under these circumstances, the decision of a co-ordinate Bench, to redress grievances of persons approaching it within a reasonable time (2 years after the event), cannot be considered as a judgment in rem to entitle all persons who claim to be similarly situated and who have come to us 8 years after the event, after seeing the outcome of what happened to those who came in time. We have also gone through the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicants. There is no doubt an observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others vs.C. (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (36) Lalitha, (supra) (in Para 29) that "Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time-to-time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently". This observation, made in the context of a seniority issue amongst senior level employees, where the rules for fixing seniority are well settled (as observed in the very next sentence in this paragraph), cannot be considered as a ratio binding us to give employment as Fresh Face Substitute (that involves use of discretionary powers), in the year 2022, to those, whose names occur in an apparently not very authentic hand-written list of 2004. The other case cited by the learned counsel for the applicants is Inder Pal Yadav and Others vs. Union of India and Others, (supra) where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to the rescue of retrenched workers who had not earlier approached the court. In that case, the discrimination happened "flowing from fortuitous court's order". Those who got the stay were not retrenched and those who did not approach the court, were. The Hon'ble Court modified the scheme of absorption of employees so that the persons so retrenched were also brought within its ambit. It is clear that the facts and circumstances of the cases cited, and the circumstances of the case before us, are vastly different. In (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (37) the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue was about a scheme or policy by the Government, which was ending up in unnecessarily distinguishing between those who got fortuitous benefit by way of stay and those who did not. In the present cases, there is no such general scheme or policy issue.
11. To put it in one sentence, the issue before us is:
whether employment as Fresh Face Substitutes should be extended to the applicants whose names figure in an apparently rough list, alleged to have been prepared for approval for such appointment in the year 2004,ONLY BECAUSE a co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal has ordered appointment to some others, seeing their names on this list. The answer, in our considered opinion, is NO. Neither the Jodhpur bench has decided the issue in rem, nor have the higher courts given their approval to any universal principle in these cases. The other claims, where the applicants' names are not even in the list of 84, cannot, by any stretch, claim similarity of treatment with those in the list. The argument of similarity of treatment can result in very absurd outcomes, if stretched too far, as is apparently likely in this case. It would mean giving appointment to a temporary job,(which, by definition is not likely to exist now), in the year 2022, on grounds that someone would have got it in (OA No.526/2012 along with other connected OAs) (38) the year 2004 if all was well, or because a few others got it for their performance before a Minister; or even because a few others happen to get it following a court/Tribunal order in a process started long back. Exceptions cannot be allowed to become rules, if they lead to absurd conclusions.
12. We, therefore, do not find the claims of the applicants, to give appointment as FFS just because their names find a place in a hand-written note or just because we have ordered, in some other cases, to treat the cases of the applicants therein, at par with the Jodhpur case. There is absolutely no similarity in the claims of those whose names do not even figure in the hand-written note of 2004, and even those, whose names do figure, have been fence sitters and have lost their right to claim any relief by not taking any action at the appropriate time.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, all the OAs are dismissed. No costs.
14. MA No.234/2020 in OA No.61/2016 and MA No.63/2019 in OA No.71/2017, seeking condonation of delay in filing the OAs, are disposed of accordingly.
(Hina P. Shah) (Dinesh Sharma) Member (J) Member (A) /kdr/