Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Sudhir Mahto And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 7 February, 2000
JUDGMENT
L. Hmingliana, Member (A).
1. We have heard all the 25 OAs on the limited question of their admissibility for adjudication by the Tribunal under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (in short A.T. Act, 1985). This order will govern all the 25 OAs, as the law points on that limited question are common to all of them. In other words, we are to decide as to whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain for adjudication the 25 OAs which have been filed by the casual labourers of the Railways and the Telecom Department, which have been declared as industries. We will be passing separate orders in each OA, either for issue of notice before admission or for disposal at the stage of admission.
2. We already have two orders delivered by two Division Benches of this Tribunal, one on 3.6.99 in OA 462/98 and 12 other OAs by both of us, and the other on 22.8.99 in OA 227 99 to which one of us, viz. Mr. Justice S. Narayan, V.C. (J) was party with Shri L.R.K. Prasad Member (A). The former was the more preliminary decision that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matters covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short I.D. Act) while the latter was the more specific order dismissing OA 22/99 filed by three retrenched casual labourers of the Telecom Department for their re-engagement and regularisation in service. Thus, there is little scope for re-examination of the question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal over applications filed by the casual labourers, which can be taken up for adjudication under the I.D. Act.
3. It has also to be mentioned here that when OA 462/98 and 8 other OAs were taken up by the Division Bench in Court No. II, to which one of us, namely, L.Hmingliana Member (A) was party, the same question of jurisdiction of this Tribunal over the OAs filed by other casual labourers was raised and argued by the learned counsel all over attain, and the order of the Division Bench is pending delivery.
4. The order of the Division Bench delivered on 3.6.99 was after the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal decided in OA 71/1997 & 47 other OAs by majority, after taking the opinion of a 3rd Member, namely, Mr. Justice K.M. Agarwal, the then Chairman that those 48 OAs filed by the casual labourers were not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to decide, as they were covered under the I.D. Act, The learned counsel in those 13 OAs (OA 462/98 and 12 other OAs) before the Division Bench consisting of both of us raised the question of jurisdiction of this Tribunal, and argued that the matter of jurisdiction need to be referred to a larger Bench of the Tribunal. By our order dated 3.6.99, we accepted the decision of the Jabalpur Bench, and dismissed the contentions of the learned counsel that the matter of jurisdiction need to be referred to a larger Bench.
5. When we took up the 25 OAs for admission, the learned counsel again reiterated the contention that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the OAs, and ihey urged that we reconsider the question. On of the main points urged by them was that the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in A. Padmavally and Ors. v. CPWD and Telecom, the Full Bench Judgment of CAT (1989 to 1991) Vol. II page 334, was not taken into consideration in our order.
6. According to them the observation of the Full Bench that "service matters must encompass not only matters provided for under service rules, but matters provided under other laws like the I.D. Act" and one of the conclusions, that" the powers of the Administrative Tribunal are the same as that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the exercise of that discretionary power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as well as on the principles laid down in the case of Rohtas Industries" make it clear that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate applications filed by workmen under the Railways and the Telecom Department.
7. Another contention the learned counsel emphasised is that the deletion of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the A.T. Act by an amendment carried out in 1986 has enabled the Tribunal to adjudicate the grievances of the workmen. Section 2 mentions the persons to whom the provisions of the Act do not apply, and the persons who were covered under the I.D. Act were included in the original Sub-Clause (b). It is the contention of the learned counsel that after the deletion of Clause (b) the applicants in the 25 OAs who are or who have been serving as casual labourers under the Railways and the Telecom Department can seek redressal of their grievances under the A.T. Act, even though the grievances may come under the I.D. Act.
8. One decision of the Supreme Court which is cited by some of the learned counsel was that of the Divisional Bench of the Apex Court in Kashtriya Chaturih Shrein Railway Majdoor Congress v. U.O.I. and Ors., 1991 (1) SLJ 107, wherein the order of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA 1361/95 was set aside. By the order dated 8.1.1996 which was set aside by the Supreme Court, the Allahabad Bench had declined to entertain the OA filed for regularising the services of contract labourers who had been engaged for several years, doing job of parcel porters at Agra Fort Railway Station on the ground that alternative remedy was available to their Union who filed the OA on their behalf. The Supreme Court's observation was that "in the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the fact that interest of casual labourers are involved, we think, it would have been appropriate for the Tribunal to decide the question itself, instead of directing the Union to avail the alternative remedy." But it would appear from the brief judgment of the Supreme Court that what the Tribunal was to decide was "which is the Appropriate Government" to decide the question of regularisation of workers in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Federation of the Railway Porters' case. The substantive question of jurisdiction of the Tribunal to adjudicate matters that can be dealt with under the I.D. Act does not appear to have been settled in that judgment.
9. Coming to the argument of the learned counsel that the decision of the Full Bench in A. Padmavally was not taken into consideration by us in our order dated 3.6.99, it is true that no mention was made of the decision of the Full Bench. However, our order was in no way contrary to the decision of the Full Bench. Then, there is no question of referring the matter to a larger Bench of the Tribunal on this ground.
10. As regards the contention that with the deletion of Sub-clause (b) of Section 2 by an Amendment made in 1986, the learned counsel were also well aware of the saving of the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals, and other Authorities constituted under the I.D. Act or any other corresponding law over the matters covered by that Act or the corresponding law from transfer to the Administrative Tribunal with the coming into force of the A.T. Act, which saving of jurisdiction is in Section 28. In fact, in Krishan Pd. Gupta v. Controller, Printing and Stationary, (1996) 32 ATC 211, the Supreme Court had this observation to make;
"41. It appears strange that although the Act has been applied to persons working in factories etc., the jurisdiction to try their cases has not been given to the Tribunal. This is, indeed, an incongruity. But then incongruity is the habit of legislative drafting."
The observation would show that the Supreme Court was aware of the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal over the cases of industrial workers, which the present applicants also are. This, the deletion of Sub-clause (b) from Section 2, as it was originally enacted, does not necessarily confer upon the Administrative Tribunal the jurisdiction over all kinds of grievances of workmen under the Railways and the Telecom Department. We will deal with the contention raised by the learned counsel on this aspect of the matter in the later part of this order.
11. Three of the important decisions taken by the Full Bench in A. Padmavally were that the Tribunal does not exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the Authority constituted under the I.D. Act in regard to matters covered under that Act, and that the applicant seeking relief, which can be dealt with under the I.D. Act, must necessarily exhaust all the remedies available under that Act, and that the powers of the Administrative Tribunal are the same as that of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the exercise of that power would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The decision of the Full Bench have not been reversed by a higher judicial forum as pointed out by the learned counsel. But the observation "that the Administrative Tribunal constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, is a substitute for the Civil Court and the High Court, is beyond doubt" in paragraph 26 of the order and similar observations elsewhere no longer hold in view of the observation of the seven Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar v. V.O.I., AIR 1987 SC 1125, that the Tribunal is no substitute for the High Court which had the constitutional jurisdiction to review the orders of the Tribunal, but that Tribunal is a supplement to the High Court, and also the Court of first instance for seeking relief in service matters within its jurisdiction.
12. Thus, applications over the service matters under the Government and organisations which have been notified by the Central Government for adjudication under the A.T. Act, have to be filed in the Tribunal, and not in the High Court. There can be a misconception following the judgment of Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar that the Tribunal has lost its former power to exercise jurisdiction over applications on service matters in the nature of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But the powers and jurisdiction of the Tribunal remained exactly the same as before the ruling of the Supreme Court in L. Chandra Kumar, the only difference being that the orders passed by the Tribunal are now appealable to the High Court and no longer directly to the Supreme Court as before. In fact, the Tribunal can still decide whether any provision in the Service Rules is ultra vires of the Constitution, though it is not the Single Member Bench but only the Division Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member that can decide the vires of the provision, and even strike it down, However, the Tribunal cannot decide about the vires of any provision of the A.T. Act, because that is the Act under which it is created. And the Tribunal has no supervisory powers over labour Courts or Industrial Tribunals or other Authorities constituted under the I.D. Act. Thus, the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide applications over service matters filed by government servants and employees of organisations which have been notified by the Central Government for adjudication under the A.T. Act.
13. Now coming to the entitlement of casual labourers seeking relief from the Tribunal under the A.T. Act, it has been clarified in the judgment of the Full Bench in A. Padmavally that matter which can be adjudicated under the I.D. Act by Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and other Authorities constituted under that Act, must not be adjudicated by the Tribunal, and that never the less the Tribunal can entertain and decide applications filed by the workmen in the nature of writ petitions. It must be stated here that casual labourers under the Railways and the Telecom Department, strictly speaking, are not holders of civil posts, their employment being for the specific purpose of doing some items of works which need to be done, but are not regular and permanent nature to warrant creation of posts. They do no have the status of regular government servants, and they are not governed by service rules. Their entitlement to seek relief under the Administrative Tribunals Act has perforce to be within a narrow compass. But as casual labourers or workers under departments which have not been declared as industries may not be entitled to seek remedy under the I.D. Act for redressal of their grievance about their employment, their applications under the A.T. Act have to be entertained and decided by the Tribunal, simply for want of alternative remedy for them. Casual labourers under the Railways and the Telecom Department, being workmen under the I.D. Act, are entitled to seek remedies from the Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and other Authorities constituted under that Act.
14. In short, though the grievance of the casual labourers under the Railways and the Telecom Department in connection with their employments can certainly be matters of service, they will be for the Labour Courts or the Industrial Tribunals or the other Authorities constituted under the I.D. Act or any corresponding law to decide, of course excepting those which my not fall within the ambit of that Act. Here we must turn to the observation of the Full Bench in A. Padmavally in paragraph 19 of their order:
"19. The concurrent jurisdiction of this Tribunal and the Machinery under the I.D. Act not only will shatter the machinery forged for the preservation of Industrial peace by will lead also to anomalous results. For instance under the I.D. Act the labour Court in case of dismissal or removal has got the discretion under Section 11A to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of workman on such terms and directions, if any as it deems fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of lasser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. Such a power is not exercisable by the Tribunals"
15. It can be readily seen from the observation of the Full Bench that prayers of some of our present applicants for reinstatement after their retrenchment or after they were not given work will not be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. It can also be readily seen that prayers for grant of temporary status as casual labourers will not be within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. However, the prayers for regularisation in Group 'D' posts will have to be entertained under the A.T. Act, and decided by the Tribunal in accordance with Rules, Regulations or Orders or Schemes of the Departments under which the casual labourers are working. In fact, the Tribunal has been admitting and deciding applications filed by persons who are not government employees, against their non-selection or non-appointment after their selection to government posts, for which the claim to be qualified, and to have made applications in response to advertisements. The prayers of some of our applicants for regularisation in Group 'D' posts will have to be admitted, heard and decided, provided they have made out a prima facie case for their regularisation by producing with their OAs copies of rules or regulations or orders or schemes of their departments under which they are working.
16. The Tribunal has been entertaining and deciding applications filed by regular government servants under the Railways and the Telecom Departments, even though such applicants may come within the definitions of workmen under the I.D. Act, the reason being that they are holders of civil posts, and there are service rules or orders or even circulars issued by the Departments to back up their claims, which is not the case with the casual labourers. Then, there need no longer be controversy about the seemingly contradictory provisions of Section 2 and 28 of the A.T. Act.
17. It must be observed that casual labourers under the Railways and the Telecom Departments, who are workmen as defined under the I.D. Act, will have to be treated like workmen in private employment, of course, justify and in accordance with the terms and conditions of their employments, as the Government has to play the role of a model employer. All the same, the casual labourers under the Railways and the Telecom Departments are in a more advantageous position, because the Departments under which they are employed have formulated some orders or schemes under which they can claim certain benefits, which workmen in private employment cannot claim. Except for that, there is no justification for treating them as a privileged class of workmen with more rights and more avenues for seeking judicial relief, be it in the form of allegations of violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution to equality before the law or equal perfection of the laws under Article 14 or to equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under Article 16. It must also be observed that violation of such constitutional rights can be and is often alleged frivolously, though grievance can very well be dealt with and decided in accordance with the relevant Acts, Rules and no exercise of writ jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the Tribunal on similar lines is called for, and we find in none of the cases before us, the need for exercise of that jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In other words, the grievances can very well be dealt with and decided under the relevant Act, Rules or orders of the Government, either by the Labour Courts, or the Industrial Tribunals or the Authorities constituted under the I. D. Act or by the Administrative Tribunal.
18. In the light of the observations which we have made above, we will now proceed to pass orders on each of the 25 OAs before us at the stage of admission. Those which are not within our jurisdiction and those which are barred by limitation for admission under the A.T. Act, and where the claims of the applicants are not substantiated even prima facie with relevant documents such as the schemes of regular isation, or rules, regulations or instructions of the Departments or at least orders of their appointment or where relevant, their removal will be dismissed at the stage of admission. Where there is a prima facie case for admission and the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, notices before admission will be issued.
I.O.A.No. 20 of 1998The four applicants claim to have been working under the N.E. Railway for about 14 to 16 years as substitute or unskilled Group 'D' staff with temporary status. Their prayer is for their regularisation in Group 'D' posts. Though they have not produced the scheme or regularisation of the Railways, there is here a prima facie case for issue of notice before admission.
Issue notices to the respondents to show cause as to why this OA be not admitted for hearing. Reply may be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. Requisites may be filed within one week. List this case on for admission.
2. O.A. No. 677 of 1998The three applicants claim to have worked under the District Telecom Manager, Darbhanga as Daily Rated Majdoors from 1985 till their removal by order dated 19.6.1998. They are challenging that order and the order of implementation dated 30.06.1998 issued by the Sub-divisional Engineer, Jainagar. Interim relief was granted by a Single Member Bench of this Tribunal on 26.11.1998.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction. The order of interim relief stands vacated.
3. O.A. No. 839 of 1998The applicant claims to have worked as a casual labourer on muster roll under the A.E. COAXIAL, Patna of the Telecom Department for the periods from March, 1987 to December, 1991, and from July to October, 1995. His prayer is for quashing the order vide office book signed by A.E. CXL (M), Telephone Kendra, Patna, which stopped him from the work since November, 1995, and he is also praying for direction to the respondents to reengage him as casual labourer.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction at the stage of admission.
4. O.A. No. 117 of 1999The applicant claims to have worked as Daily Wager on muster roll under the N.E. Railway from 31.07.1976 and Min Fitter Khalasi till 31.12.1977. His prayer is to continue and regularise him as muster roll worker.
The applicant has come far too late, and he has not even produced documents in support of his case. His OA is clearly barred by limitation even for admission under the A.T. Act. And the Tribunal has no jurisdiction over the matter.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
5. OA. No. 131 0/1999 The applicant claims to have worked as casual labourer under the N.E. Railway. He filed O.A. No. 296/94 along with four other persons for re-engagement. The Tribunal is said to have passed order on 10.3.95 for verification of the claim of the applicant for inclusion in the dormant casual labour list. The Divisional Engineer, Malda rejected vide the impugned order date 26.06.1995 his claim for inclusion in the dormant list of casual labour.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction.
6. O.A. No. 199 of 1999;
The two applicants claim to have worked as Daily Rated Majdoors under the Telecom District Manager, Darbhanga from 1981 and 1983. They claim that they have been given no work since 15.5.1998. Their prayer is for grant of temporary status or permanent status.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction.
7. O.A. No. 217 of 1999The two applicants claim to have worked as Daily Rated Majdoors under the Telecom Department from March and December, 1982 respectively till 30.4.1998 and 1.7.1997 respectively. They claim that they have not been given work since then. They also claim to have been interviewed on 13.5.1998 for grant of temporary status. Their prayer is for their reinstatement and grant of temporary status and regularisation in Group 'D' pqsts. Since they have not produced relevant documents to support their case for regularisation in service or even for grant of temporary status to them, their prayer, in substance, is for their reinstatement in service.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction.
8. O.A.No. 262 of 1999The two applicants claim to have worked as Daily Rated Majdoors at Sitamarhi under the S.D,O. Telecom Department from 1982 till Junior Engineer, Telegraph Sitamarhi slopped them from working vide impugned letter dated 2.2.1995. They made representations, the last of which was dated 22.2.1998. Their prayer is for quashing the impugned order and for direction to the respondents authority to appoint/regularise them in the light of directions given by the Tribunal in other similar cases, viz., OA 594/95 and 599/96.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction.
9. O.A.No. 367 of 1999The applicant claims to have joined the Railway Service as substitute on 21.3.1980, and attained temporary status on 20.9.1980. According to his OA, he fell sick on 28.3.1981, and remained on sick list till 5.4.1983, and when he reported for duties on 17.4.1983, he was not allowed to resume duties. His prayer is for quashing the letters issued to him dated 15.5.1983, and by S.O.D. Personnel Officer, Mugalsarai dated 31.5.1999. The first letter was that his name had been deleted from the list of substitutes, and the second was that the competent authority had decided not to take action on his application, the cause of action would arise after he received the first letter, and his OA is barred by limitation for admission under the A.T. Act. Besides, the application has to be dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction. And it is so dismissed.
10. O.A. No. 370 of 1999The three applicants claim to be working as Daily Rated Majdoors under the Telecom Department, and to have made representation for grant of temporary status, which was not granted. They also claim to have filed OA 594/95 in the Tribunal, which OA was disposed of by Single Member vide order dated 22.2.99 with direction to the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations, if made by them. The Department rejected their representations vide order dated 5.5.99 of the Divisional Engineer (Admn), office of the G M. T.D., Muzaffarpur. Their application is against that order.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction. 11. OA. No. 395 of 1999 The applicant claims to have been working as local Sanitary Substitute cleaner at Kishanganj under the N.E. Railway from 28.1.1984. She claims that a provisional seniority list of substitutes sanitary cleaner was published on 1.5.1988 for a period upto 30.4.1988, wherein her name was not included. Her application is for inclusion of her name in the list and for declaration that she has attained temporary status. It is out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
12. OA. No. 412 of 1999The nine applicants claim to have worked as casual labourers at Darbhanga under the Telecom Department, and to have been dis-ehgaged. It appears that the Telecom District Manager, Darbhanga held interview of Daily Rated Majdoors in May, 1998 for grant of temporary status, and the applicants were not among the nine Majdoors who were found fit and granted temporary status. The T.D.M. vide tetter dated 19.6.98 instructed all the Divisional Engineers and all Sub-divisional Engineers in Darbhanga to terminate the services of those who were not found fit. The application is against that order. It is out of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
13. O.A. No. 413 of 1999The seven applicants claim to have worked as casual Majdoors in Darbhanga under the Telecom Department. It appears that the Telecom District Manager of Darbhanga interviewed in May, 1998 the Daily Rated Majdoors for grant of temporary status, and nine of them were then granted temporary status, but not the applicants. The T.D.M. issued instructions vide letter dated 19.6.98 to all the Divisional Engineers and Sub-Divisional Engineers to terminate the services of the balance casual Majdoors who were not granted temporary status. By this application, the seven applicants are challenging that order. It is out of the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
14. O.A. No. 427 of 1999The applicant claims to have worked as casual labourer in Samastipur under the Telecom Department. His application is for direction to the respondents to take him back on duty as regular labourer, and not to discriminate among similarly situated persons.
The application is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
15. O.A. No. 447 of 1999The three applicants claim to have worked as casual majdoors in Darbhanga Telecom Department, the applicant No. 1 till 30.6.1997 and the applicants no. 2 and 3 till 31.3.1998. By this application, they are challenging the letter dated 19.6.1998 of the T.D.M., Darbhanga to all the Sub-Divisional Engineers of Darbhanga to terminate the services of all the Majdoors who had not been found fit for grant of temporary status after interview held in May, 1998. The three applicants were not among the nine who came to be granted temporary status. Their prayer is also for direction to the respondents to grant them temporary status.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction.
16. O.A. No. 450 of 1999The two applicants claim to have been engaged as full time casual majdoors from the year 1987 and 1988 under the T.D.M., Darbhanga. They were directed by the T.D.M. to appear in the interview to be held between 12.5.1996 to 20.5.1998. Their Union submitted a representation against the interview, alleging that it was being conducted contrary to the department rules. The applicants were expecting order granting them temporary status, but on 30.6.1998, one month's notice for their discontinuation was issued to them. The application is for quashing the order dated 19.6,98 of the T.D.M., by which all the Divisional Engineers and all the Sub-Divisional Engineers in Darbhanga Telecom Department were informed to terminate the services of all the casual majdoors who were not found fit for grant of temporary status or to be continued in the department because of some reasons'given in the letter. Their application is for quashing the letter and also the letter dated 30.6.98 of the S.D.O., Telegraph, Telecom Madhubani in implementation of the instructions of the T.D.M. The application is dismissed at the stage of admission for want of jurisdiction. 17. O.A. No. 455 of 1999 The applicant claim to have been appointed as Daily Rated Majdoors under the Assistant Engineers, Chirkunda, Dhanbad some time in September, 1984, and to have continued there till 1984, and then to have worked from August, 1994 to June, 1995 under the S.D.O. Telegraph, Barauni. Then he was stopped from the work. His prayer is for direction to the respondents to grant him temporary status and to regularise his services. He has produced one document purporting to be a list of number of days of work he had put in. He has not prayed for his reinstatement. The matter is out of jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the applicant has also not made out a prima facie case for admission under the A.T. Act.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission. 18. O.A. No. 457 of 1999 The applicant claims to have been initially engaged as Daily Rated Majdoors under the; Telecom Department at Chandigarh in the year 1979, and then shifted to Muzaffarpur. He states that he has not been assigned any work since 1985. His application is for direction to the respondents to regularise his services, and confer temporary status on him. The application is out of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, besides being barred by limitation under the A.T. Act.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission. 19. O.A. No. 458 of 1999 The applicant claims to have been engaged in the Telecom Department from 15.4.1988.
He claims to have made representation for grant of temporary status following a judgment of the Supreme Court in 1989. His application is for direction to the respondents to provide him regular work, and to consider his case for grant of temporary status. The matter is outside the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Besides, it would be barred by limitation for admission under the A.T. Act.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
20. O.A. No. 465 of 1999The two applicants claim to have worked as Daily Rated Majdoors under the S.D.O. Phones, Darbhanga from April, 1984, and to have continued to work for different periods upto May, 1997 and to have been stopped from working thereafter. Their application is for direction to the respondents to grant them temporary status, and also to regularise their services. This prayer for grant of temporary status is out-side the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, and as to the prayer for grant of regularisation in service, they have not even established a prima facie case for admission under the A.T. Act.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
21. O.A. No. 466 of J999 The five applicants were appointed to various posts at Samastipur Handicraft Centre of the N.E. Railway, the applicant No. 1 as Tailor, the applicant No. 2 as Clerk and the applicants No. 3. 4 & 5 as Chaukidar vide order dated 17.11.1995 issued by the Chief Pattern of the Centre, who is also the General Manager (Personnel), N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur. The applicants are praying for their regularisation in posts to which they were appointed. At para 4.4. of the O.A., it is clearly stated that they are not treated as Railway employees, but only certain facilities sanctioned from time to time by the Railway Board/Administration are granted to them. They claim to have been included in the panel dated 28.7.98/11.6.98 (A/ 4) for regularisation in service. Their prayer in this OA is for direction to implement the panel and to appoint them to Group 'D' posts.
They have produced the General Manager (P)'s letter dated 15.9.1979 to all the Heads of Department and the Divisional Railway Manager etc. (A/3), according to which the employees of the Handicraft Centre were also made eligible for regularisation in service.
Issue notices to the respondents to show cause as to why this OA be not admitted for hearing. Reply may be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within one week thereafter. Requisites may be filed within one week.
22. O.A. No. 474 of 1 999The applicant claims to have been engaged by the Telecom Department as a contract motor driver from October/November, 1996 onwards with fixed salary, initially at Rs. 1500/- per month, which was enhanced to Rs. 3000/- per month vide order dated 21.10.1998 issued by the Divisional Engineer (A&P) office of the G.M.T.D., Darbhanga. His prayer in this application is for direction to the respondents to regularise his services with all consequential benefits.
The applicant has not furnished copy of the scheme, if any, under which he can claim regularisation. Then, no prima fade case even for admission has been made out.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
23. OA. No. 477 of 1999The 75 applicants claim to have worked as casual labourers under the Sonepur Division of the N.E. Railway for various periods from 9.7.1969 in case of applicant No. 74 till mostly 15.1.1989, though the period during which the applicant No. 74 claims to have worked was only from 9.7.1969 to 15.4.1971, and in case of applicant No. 59 from 16.3.1974 to 15.7.1975. Their prayer, in substance, is for reinstatement as casual labourers and for regularisation in service, though the orders dated 27.5.1998 (A/6) and 31.5.99 (A/7) are also impugned. In the first place, the application is barred by limitation for admission under the A.T. Act. Besides, the matter for reinstatement in service is out-side the jurisdiction of this Tribunal.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
24. O.A. No. 483 of 1999The applicant claims to have been engaged as a contract driver under the Telecom Department at Darbhanga from the month of May, 1997. His prayer like that of the applicant in OA 474/99 is for his regularisation in service. But he has notfurnished the scheme under which he can claim regularisation, and there is no prima fade case for admission.
The application is dismissed at the stage of admission.
25. O.A. No. 740 of 1998The applicant claims to have been engaged as substitute Sweeper at Rajapati Station of the N.E. Railway Majhaghat from 31.7.1994. He claims to have made several applications for his regularisation in service. His prayer in this OA is for direction to the respondents to consider his case for regularisation in the post of Sweeper in the regular establishment from the date of his initial appointment. But he has not furnished the scheme under which he is entitled to claim regularisation, and he has not made out a prima facie case even for admission.
This application is dismissed at the stage of admission.