Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Personnel Officer vs K.Krishnan on 23 November, 2009
Author: V.G.Sabhahit
Bench: V.G.Sabhahit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT EANGALCIRETE .
DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF NovEMBER.«2bo9'I
PRESENT ._
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAEI,
AND* V
THE I-ION'BLE MR.JUSTICE'VIG---,.$ABi?IAHfi'
WRIT PETITION 'H'O;--32:§sS',*2oQ9SI '("S4_:AT)
BETWEEN * 1 .,
1. THE DIVISIONALPERSONNEI;OFFICER,
PERSONNEL_B_RA{{J"C__H.SBC',:. _
SOUTH wEsTERN"'-RAILWA¥,""-- 'f.
EANGALORE,.m'~seQ 023. .. %
2. THE U;NION11AOi5'.IN_D'iAA _ I
REP. BY ITS GTENERALI-MPINAQER,
SOUTH WESTERN RA'I1,w'A_Y; "
I-IUBLI-- 5894020. ' . PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DEVADAS, S'R._.ADv._A/w SMT. K.S. ANASUYA DEVI
FORM/S-..T..N*Y;;YAIIr§ITRA A"D'VOcATEs)
AND -
SHRI E. KRI.sHNAR,
V-..__S/O KANDAN,
AGED ABO.UT./.55 -YEARS,
_ >.Ex.'.r:ASUAL..LAEOUR, SALEM: DIVN,
' " SO'UT§L WESTERN RAILWAY,
4: 'R/ATO;v»NO34-.3, B~»~2, TROPPUR KARIKANAHALLI,
"THO.PFUR POST, DHARMAPURI DIST» 636 521. RESPONDENT
I _f1'_};IIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 85 f » . . _22"'?_OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR IOE4_'Q'REcORDs IN OA. NO. 230/07 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT, f \ hhhhhh "
BANGALORE BENCH AND ON CONSIDERATION OF' MATTER. QUASH THE ORDER OF CAT, BANGALORE BENACH DT. 6.5.09, IN OA. NO. 230/O7 VIDE ANN--A, 81; DISMISS 230/07, FELED BY THE RESPONDENT AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING UP FOR Q:R.:'E.R's';.'i~Tri1s' DAY, THE COURT DELTVERED THE _I_NG:--_5 ORDER *2 (Delivered by P.D.Dir1akarai3, iC.J.} This Writ petition is filed byfitiie DiVisi_oiieai Personnel Officer, South Western Rriiiway arid' Tr'.'l:411(pi)'lil'1'€1' respondent in Original Application N0.230/ the the Central Administrative' (heie-inaftei'Creferred to as 'CAT'} Bangalore aggrieved by the order dated O6,()5.i'§iOO9'v the CAT has allowed the a"pp1icat.ioii1grante--d«"the prayer of the applicant by 't.he.:_ireisp:o11dent No.1-the first appellant herein to ..d,.,__,vCOmpietei°the.iteiiereise of absorption of Ex.CL's against the _l_ige'_--«.aya§1Vab1e ':7~'v9ii";.(';rroup 'D' posts in the manner explained in of the order within a period of three months A" the date of receipt of a copy of the order. :_, ' ' Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioriers and the learned counsel appearing for the responden~t~...i4' A'
3. The challenge made in this wri_t..netition"
the one raised and considered by this:":Coii_rt* No.29767/2009, wherein this Cotirtflrpy a d'etailed'iorder'~dated 18th November 2009 has disposed ofthe .pAetAition. In the said writ petition it is "l0. The scrutiny_Qf the would clearly show l7_.11a1é:TC'l.;"3LL6','i'Of tiheirmespondentw applicar1t"b«efdre "is~s2's / 12/ 1955 and he was casual iabour on 16/8/ . on record would further short? tlr1at.even per the intimation sent ,__by petitioner ---- --herein, the name of the shown in the live register when the sent on 22/ 7/ 2003 as per AnneXure~ annexed to the application. It is ix_clearly~~ stated that the name of the applicant is lljai/ailableii in the live/supplementary register and it he has been already asked to attend for screening 30/12/2004 and 31/12/2004 at Railway Institute, Bangalore. Further contents of ,-«ft:-~\ ,, 5 - r// l L/,» Annexure 'A-5' would clearly show that in the list of Casual Labourers eligible candidatesyiarie entered in the live register and the « applicant has also been shown. :iFurther',"._the ~fa<;t that applicant had been called i'foVr:'screeni12.,g'fo1< V' absorption of casual labourers-.rand that has been found in the live is notdisputed by the applicant. earlier letters Annexures 'A-1' to 'A--a3'i the educational qu_ali1ication"had preiiseribed for absorption, H not.' th'e""purpose of absorption case of initial appointrne.nrjj;pi by i A 11.1.'. record would clearly show thatpithere». in the contention of the petition"er._:V that theiapplicants were called for .onlybfo'r----the purpose of preparing fresh registerppiavsp the intimation would fairly show above that the name of the applicant already been entered in the live registerijand he had been called for absorption of casual labourers. The only ground upon which thie petitioners seems to have rejected the claim of .,,_the applicant for absorption is age limit. It is {».,__'_V_'\ K, }i ,....---' '-
: X)'/~ clear from the Railway Board Master Circular' No.38 envisaged at Para. 17.9 as follows» "At the time of screening of eas:ta:l._ V labour relaxation in age""'s--.'-could automatic if it is establis}lfied:..thC:ttI_the'--. individual was within the prescribed age , «. limit and had been mo're__or less iegulariye working. In old casesflwhereathe._age"-av limit was not observed, relva:-:ation"ofp age should be considered""'syinpatheticaZly. The CPOS, s Chief Engineers (Construction). are oornpetent to grant the prelaxatiori, in agei', ' " V = "
12. The {apt :t11at.e1=>oe; l_jlRMlSlllai1d the Chief Engineers competent to grant re1axa'tio'rt~-rnadelll nctpidispiitetlivlby the petitioner. Further, '-lhavingiregaréi-to---the fact that the case of the applicant before t_he-ffribunal is for absorption and -not for initiaé appointment. What is required g;.ons_idereld' is-as to whether the appointment ' ,easVuaa1'«.l_a"oour was Within the prescribed age when vfimitiaily recruited as a casual labour arid the~fa§:tilthat when the petitioner was initially engaged. as a casual labour, he was within the age L" "1:at1t was not disputed as the date of birth of the "Iapplicant is 25/ 12/ 1955 and initial engagement is i V. 16/8/1979. The applicant has also substantiated before the Tribunal that though his name was found in the register he was not re-_..__ engaged and persons who were junior to hizn the list were engaged and therefore, the Tri_1j;'u;na_;. after detail consideration of the above'-lsajid i material on record has held that--tthe---appilicaitijonof the applicant for absorption erroneously and issued directionsitoicomple'te the exercise of absorption of E:s{'Casual._Labiourvers against the available 'iD-{posts"i.n.-tjhe manner explained in Pe;ra.,1'6 above.
13. Having» thpésnbpoxfe facts of the case, the acii{_c:_1;tlarj'isus't1ed--._b3A% the petitioner and Master also having regard to the factuthat '~on«record clearly show that name of the 'app'l_icant'~»had already been included in..«the live register and his application has been rejected only on the ground of age and absorption ' iideclined only on the ground of age, ytrhich _i.s'sc_}.early erroneous and contrary to the circular issued by the petitioner as referred to nab_.ovei."'. The Tribunal has issued direction as 'impugned in this writ petition. That having regard to the above said material on record, we are dissatisfied that the finding of the Tribunal is