Gujarat High Court
Ramanbhai Babarbhai Baria vs Union Of India & on 23 July, 2015
Author: Ks Jhaveri
Bench: Ks Jhaveri, G.B.Shah
C/SCA/18736/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18736 of 2014
==========================================================
RAMANBHAI BABARBHAI BARIA....Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & 1....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
SUNITA S CHATURVEDI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS HINA DESAI, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1 - 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
Date : 23/07/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 17-9-2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal" for short) in O.A.No.260 of 2009 with M.A.No.398 of 2009 whereby the decision of the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioner for inclusion of his name for granting temporary status of casual labour was rejected.
2. Facts in short are that the petitioner was engaged as a casual labour in the office of IOW, DB, Western Railway on 1-3-1982 and on completion apprenticeship, he was re-engaged in the same office on 23-2-1983. On 12-9-1991, he was medically found fit in C1 category. However, in the list of casual Page 1 of 5 C/SCA/18736/2014 ORDER labours who were granted temporary status, name of the petitioner was not included. Representation dated 7-8-1993 made by him was rejected on 27-11-2008. He therefore approached the learned Tribunal by filing OA No.260 of 2009 along with M.A. No.398 of 2009 for condonation of delay. However, while condoning the delay caused in preferring the Original Application, impugned judgment and order was passed rejecting his Original Application. Hence, the present petition.
3. Learned advocate, Ms.Sunita Chaturvedi for the petitioner contended that in view of clause (26) of Other Conditions of Service-Casual Labour stating that casual labourers who have put in four months' continuous service but who have over 120 days of service of broken periods may also be screened if in the seniority list of the casual labourers maintained in the unit, their juniors become eligible and come for screening. Part of clause (26)(i) of Other Conditions of Service-Casual Labour reads as under:
"The casual labourers who have put in four months' continuous service but who have over 120 days of service of broken periods, may also be screened if in the seniority list of the casual labourers maintained in the unit, their juniors become eligible and come for screening. [R.B.No.E(NG)II-76/CL/67 of 11-2-77](N.R., S.N.7046). Discharged casual labour having four months' continuous service before discharge should be considered for screening if such discharged casual labour approach the administration at the time of screening.
[R.B.No.E(NG)II-76/CL/67 of 5-1-80] (N.R., S.N.7483)"
4. Ms.Chaturvedi also contended that in an identical situation, when petition being Special Civil Application No.17620 of 2011 was preferred, the Division Bench of this Court has disallowed the petition preferred by the Union against the Page 2 of 5 C/SCA/18736/2014 ORDER orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Review application No.22 of 2011 and order dated 23.11.2010 passed in OA No.360 of 2008. She further contended that the learned Tribunal considering the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratan Chandra Samanta vs. Union of India & Ors. Reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 182 has observed in paras 8 and 9 as under:
"8. Both parties were heard. Mr.M.S.Trivedi during his arguments reiterated the grounds stated in the OA and the rejoinder and also highlighted the fact that the details of employment given by the applicant in the OA merit consideration as also to the fact that his name was not included in the list published in 1991. He specifically referred to Annexure-A/2 relating to the period of his engagement and to Annexure-A/3 wherein according to him, his juniors had been appointed in 1991 i.e. after 14- 7-1981, whereas he was not included in the list. On the other hand, Ms.R.R.Patel, appearing on behalf of the respondents, claimed that the list at Annexure-A/3 related to grant of temporary status and not for re- engagement as casual labour as per turn in the live register. She stated that this document was not at all relevant. She also argued that the period of engagement was in different spells and the total number of applicant's days of work were 129. Thus, the applicant had not worked continuously for 120 days. Moreover, as per ban of 14-7-1981, no re-engagement or engagement of old or new faces is possible. Ms. R.R.Patel also produced a copy of the judgment dated 23-4-2001 of this Tribunal in OA/818/1994. The Tribunal in that judgment had referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ratan Chandra Samanta vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 1994 SCC (L&S) 182, which is reproduced as under:
"Two questions arise, one, if the petitioners are entitled as a matter of law for reemployment and other if they have lost their right, if any, due to delay. Right of casual labourer employed in projects, to be reemployed in railways has been recognized both by the Railways and this Court. But unfortunately the petitioners did not take any step to enforce their claim before the Railways except sending a vague representation nor did they even care to produce any Page 3 of 5 C/SCA/18736/2014 ORDER material to satisfy this Court that they were covered in the scheme framed by the Railways. It was urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that they may be permitted to produce their identify cards etc., before opposite parties who may accept or reject the same after verification. We are afraid it would be too dangerous to permit this exercise. A writ is issued by this Court in favour of a person who has some right, and not for sake of roving enquiry leaving scope for maneuvering. Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available is law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well. From the date of retrenchment if it is assumed to be correct a period of more than 15 years has expired and in case we accept the prayer of petitioner we would be depriving a host of others who in the meantime have become eligible and are entitled to claim to be employed."
The Tribunal came to the conclusion in that OA that the applicant had failed to establish that he was working as casual labour prior to 1981 and was, therefore, not eligible for being re-employed. The said OA was accordingly dismissed.
9. The pleadings, documents and arguments in this OA have been considered. The impugned order refers to the ban, effective on 14-7-1981. From the pleadings and arguments of both parties, it is apparent that the applicant did not continuously work for 120 days and was engaged for different periods, as has been clearly brought out by the respondents both in their reply and during arguments. The applicant's case does not relate to his engagement prior to the ban of 14-7-1981 and as brought out by the respondents, applicant's claim for inclusion in the list of 9-8-1991 is also not justified because that list relates to grant of temporary status."
5. In view of the aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the observation made by the learned Tribunal that since the petitioner did not continuously work for 120 days, the petitioner's claim was not rightly considered for grant of temporary status is just and proper. Apart from that, impugned order was passed by the DRM, Vadodara, on 27-11- Page 4 of 5 C/SCA/18736/2014 ORDER 2008 whereas Original Application was preferred by the petitioner on 29-7-2009 and though there was a delay in preferring the application, it was condoned by the learned Tribunal. We are in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment and no illegality or irregularity has been noticed by this Court as having committed by the learned Tribunal and hence, no interference is called for in the same. Hence, present petition being devoid of any merits is hereby dismissed.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) 1 (G.B.SHAH, J.) RADHAN Page 5 of 5