Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Ramzan Khan vs General Manager N C Rly on 13 February, 2025
(Reserved on 04.12.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No.1028/2021
This the 13th Day of February 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (J)
Ramzan Khan son of Late Bashir Ahmad resident of Birkha Koli Ka Bada,
Tanson Road, District Gwalior.
........... Applicant
By Advocate: Shri Ajit Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi
2. The General Manager, North Central Railway, Allahabad
3. The General Manager (Personnel), North Central Railway, Allahabad
4. The Chief Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Allahabad
5. The Deputy Chief Material Manager, General Store Depot, Jhansi
............ Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma
ORDER
Heard Ajit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Present Original Application (O.A.) has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following main relief(s):-
"i. An Order be passed quashing the impugned order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Deputy Chief Material Manager, General Store Depot, Jhansi whereby the rightful claim of the application has been rejected by not complying with the order dated 21.09.2021 of this Hon'ble Tribunal passed in Original Application No. 330/00589 of 2015 in its true sense and spirit.
SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.2
ii) An Order be passed directing the respondents to appoint/reengage the applicant on Group-D post by granting age relaxation which occurred due to long spell of time in approaching the Hon'ble Tribunal/Hon'ble High Court from 1996-2021 during which he was eligible as per rules regarding age limit.
iii) An Order be passed direct the respondents to regularize the services of the applicant on Group-D post on overall consideration of the circumstances of the case"
3. Brief facts of the case, as reflected from the Original Application, are as follows:-
3.1 The applicant, an OBC candidate, was initially engaged as a casual laborer under Permanent Way Inspector (P.W.1,) Agra Cantt. on 18.10.1986. He continued to work until 1991 with some artificial breaks during his engagement. The applicant's date of birth is 15.07.1969. On 01.02.1990, the applicant was called upon to appear before a Screening Committee on 12.02.1990 along with the necessary documents.
However, the decision of the Screening Committee was not communicated to him. Subsequently, the applicant learned that individuals junior to him had been considered and granted appointments, while his case was overlooked.
3.2 Being aggrieved the applicant pursued several legal remedies over the years. Initially, he filed OA No. 339/1994 before Jabalpur Circuit Bench at Gwalior, which was later withdrawn. He then filed OA No. 208/1996 before the same Bench, which was returned due to lack of jurisdictional. Subsequently, he filed OA No. 645/1998 before this Tribunal. This OA was disposed of on 25.02.2003 with directions that the applicant be granted temporary status as per applicable rules and that his name be entered in the Live Casual Labour Register.
3.3 The respondents challenged the Tribunal's order by filing Writ Petition No. 23308/2003 before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court, vide its order dated 25.05.2007 set aside the direction regarding temporary status but upheld other parts of the Tribunal's order. It further clarified that consideration of the applicant's case for regularization would be subject to applicable rules and the judgment of SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006) 4 SCC 1, which set guidelines for regularizing casual workers.
3.4 Following this, the respondents rejected the applicant's claim for regular appointment. The rejection was based on the grounds that the applicant had exceeded the maximum permissible age for consideration (40 years) and that he was not eligible for age relaxation as an OBC candidate, citing delayed submission of his caste certificate.
3.5 The applicant continued to represent his grievances through multiple representations from 2007 to 2013, asserting that his rejection was arbitrary and illegal. He contended that similarly situated individuals had been considered favourably and his exclusion was unjustified. However, the respondents did not act upon his representations, prompting the applicant to approach the Tribunal once again.
4. The respondents represented by Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma have filed their counter reply on 30.08.2023 and stated that:-
4.1 The order dated 30.10.2021 was issued in compliance with the directions of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 21.09.2021 following the established rules and procedures of the Railways and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi.
4.2 It is further stated that the applicant's claim for regularization was considered de novo in compliance with the Tribunal's directions.
However, the applicant was found ineligible as his initial appointment as a casual labourer on 13.10.1986 was made by an authority not competent to do so under the Railway Board's guidelines. The appointment is therefore deemed to be illegal.
4.3 Regarding the applicant's OBC status, it is submitted that the certificate was produced after the decision of the Tribunal but the applicant had already become overage despite the relaxation provided. The Tribunal's directions to overlook the overage factor have been duly SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.4 considered in light of the legal principles but the claim could not be allowed under existing rules.
4.4 The respondents further state that the applicant was not found fit in the screening held on 12.02.1990, where ten other casual Khalasis were granted temporary status. The applicant's name was later included in the Casual Labour Register but was deleted as he was overage as per Railway Board orders.
4.5 In conclusion, the respondents state that the applicant's case has been thoroughly considered and disposed of as per relevant rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements including the Hon'ble High Court's direction in this matter. The claim for regularization based on an irregular appointment cannot be entertained under the constitutional and legal framework established by the Apex Court.
5. Rejoinder Affidavit has also been filed by the applicant on 24.01.2024 in which he has denied the claim of the applicant and reiterated the facts of the Original Application.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have failed to comply with the explicit directions of this Tribunal and the Allahabad High Court. The applicant's claim for regularization has been arbitrarily rejected without appreciating the fact that similarly situated individuals, even those junior to the applicant, were regularized.
6.1 It is submitted that the rejection of the applicant's case on the grounds of irregular appointment and age bar is unsustainable, particularly in light of the Tribunal's direction to consider the applicant's case in accordance with law.
6.2 The failure to communicate the Screening Committee's decision further violated the principles of natural justice depriving the applicant of a fair opportunity to present his case.
6.3 Learned counsel further contends that the respondents' reliance on delayed submission of the OBC certificate to deny the applicant age SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.5 relaxation is flawed. The applicant has continuously maintained his OBC status and the respondents' actions indicate a clear bias and discriminatory treatment. Additionally, the rejection based on irregular appointment overlooks the Railway Board's own guidelines, which require regularization of long-serving casual workers. The denial of regularization, despite the applicant's eligibility under relevant rules and despite his name being entered in the Casual Labour Register as directed by this Hon'ble Tribunal, demonstrates the arbitrary and non-transparent manner in which the respondents have acted.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant's initial engagement as a casual laborer was not made by a competent authority as per the Railway Board's guidelines. As such, the appointment was illegal and cannot form the basis for regularization.
7.1 It is also argued that the applicant was not found fit during the screening conducted on 12.02.1990 and his name was removed from the Casual Labour Register because he was overage. These actions were as per the Railway Board's rules and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra).
7.2 The respondents further submits that the order dated 30.10.2021 was passed in strict compliance with the Tribunal's earlier directions and applicable rules. The applicant's claim was reconsidered but his ineligibility persisted due to the lack of a valid OBC certificate at the relevant time and his overage status. The respondents contend that they have acted fairly and within the legal framework and the applicant's claim for regularization based on an irregular appointment cannot be entertained under the law.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for both parties and perused the pleadings available on record.
9. From the records, it appears that the applicant was engaged as a casual laborer in 1986 without compliance with the necessary SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.6 procedural and legal requirements under the Railway Board guidelines. This irregularity forms the foundation of the respondents' contention that the applicant cannot claim regularization as a matter of right.
10. The respondents have substantiated that the applicant was screened in 1990 and while other individuals were found fit and granted temporary status, the applicant was not selected. The rejection was not arbitrary but based on valid grounds including his unsuitability as determined by the Screening Committee and the subsequent lapse in fulfilling eligibility requirements such as age relaxation, within the prescribed timeframe.
11. The reliance placed by the respondents on the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra) is apt and binding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that regularization cannot be granted to appointments made without adherence to proper recruitment procedures. Even though the applicant claims discrimination and irregularity in the screening process, no tangible evidence has been produced to substantiate these allegations.
12. Furthermore, the applicant's prolonged delay in pursuing legal remedies from the initial rejection to the filing of multiple representations and Original Applications has exacerbated his overage status and diminished his eligibility under the applicable rules. The Tribunal's earlier order directing reconsideration of the applicant's case has been duly complied with by the respondents, as evident from the impugned order dated 30.10.2021. This order appears to be consistent with the legal framework and does not reflect any arbitrariness or malafide intent.
13. While this Tribunal sympathizes with the applicant's situation, judicial precedents and statutory regulations bind its authority. The applicant's case, originating from an irregular appointment and SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Page No.7 compounded by procedural delays, cannot be allowed to circumvent established legal principles.
14. In light of the above observations, the Original Application lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
15. There shall be no order as to costs.
All pending MAs shall be treated as disposed of.
(Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member (J) Sushil SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA