Central Administrative Tribunal - Lucknow
Lal Bahadur Chaudhary vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 31 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH LUCKNOW
Original Application No. 452 of 2013
Order Reserved On 17.3.2015
Order Pronounced on 31.3.2015
HONBLE MR. NAVNEET KUMAR MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MS. JAYATI CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Lal Bahadur Chaudhary, aged about 52 years son of Sri Shiv Prasad Chaudhary, Resident of Village Isapur, Post:Chamiyani, district: Unnao.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri Anil Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Railway Board, New Delhi.
2. Ex Director/E(N), Railway Board, New Delhi.
3. General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi.
4. Senior Divisional engineer (Quardination), Northern Railway, Lucknow.
5. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Lucknow.
6. Divisional Railway Manager(P), Northern Railway, Lucknow.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi
Shri S.Verma
ORDER
By Honble Mr. Navneet Kumar, Member (J) The present Original Application is preferred by the applicant under Section 19 of the AT Act, 1985 with the following reliefs:-
The Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned orders dated 8.10.2013 and 15.10.2013 passed by Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 6 respectively contained in Annexure No. 1 & 2 to the O.A. and the Honble Tribunal may be further pleased to directed to Respondent No. 1 to accord approval for the permanent absorption of the applicant so that he may be permanently absorbed in the service of Northern Railway with all consequential benefits or any other direction or order which may be deemed, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the applicant.
2. The facts of the case are that the applicant was initially appointed as Lekhpal in the State of U.P. in 1981. He was confirmed a Lekhpal in 1988. The applicant joined the Railway on 8.10.1991. In October, 1994, the applicant got promotion to the post of Land Revenue Inspector and by means of an letter dated 17.8.1994, it is written to the District Magistrate Raibarelly that the applicant may be permitted to give further extension of three years on deputation in the railways in public interest. In response to the said letter dated 17.8.1994, District Magistrate, Raibarelly granted the extension vide order dated 22.9.1994. Not only this, it is also indicated by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the maximum period of deputation is 5 years, but the applicant continued till the impugned order is passed and by means of a letter dated 30.12.2004 request is being made to the District Magistrate Raibarelly for permanent absorption of the applicant and in response to the same, the District Magistrate Raibarelly given no objection vide order dated 15.6.2005. Not only this, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was given permanent PF No. by the Railway Administration. It is also argued that earlier the O.A. No. 366 of 2011 was dismissed on the ground of having become infructuous. The said order was challenged before the Honble High Court and the Honble High Court remanded back the matter to the Tribunal after setting aside the order dated 12.9.2011 through which the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. as having been rendered infructuous. Subsequently, the O.A. was heard finally and disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his permanent absorption in the Northern Railway within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order in accordance with law and also past precedence with all consequential benefits as per rules.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention towards the orders passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1877 of 1993, O.A. 1943 of 1993 and 2478 of 1993. Those O.As were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for permanent absorption in Railways and in pursuance thereof, the respondents regularized the services of Shri Farooq Ahmad, Shri A. K. Saxena and Sri Vinod Kumar Saxena. Not only this, the learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention towards the absorption of another employee namely Mukhtar Husain Ansari whose services were regularized without any directions from any court. It is also indicated that Sri Mukhtar Hsain Ansari is absorbed in railways in 2000. Not only this, the learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the circulars of 1994 and 2010 and has indicated that the circular/letter dated 6.4.1998 as mentioned in the impugned order does not have any relevance and it has wrongly been quoted in the impugned order. Apart from this, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the reference of the case of Uma Devi is also not warranted as the applicant is not casual worker and is not claiming regularization. The applicant challenges the impugned order dated 30.6.2011 in O.A. 366 of 2011 through which he was repatriated back and the Tribunal while deciding the same set aside the order and directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his permanent absorption. The learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention towards the satisfactory service of more than 20 years rendered by the applicant and has also indicated that even after the issuance of circular/letter dated 6.4.1998, the respondents sought extension of the applicant and also sought permission for permanent absorption in 2004 and no objection was also given by the concerned District Magistrate.
4. On behalf of the respondents two preliminary objections are raised. Firstly, it is indicated that the applicant has not impleaded the State of UP as a party and subsequently the applicant has not challenged the reliving order as he stands relieved after the impugned order dated 8.10.2013. Not only this, it is also indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the entire PF amount is also transferred to Accountant General UP Allahabad through cheque dated 27.2.2015. It is to be pointed out that the said transmission is during the pendency of the present O.A. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the respondents has also indicated that the impugned order contains 35 pages where as The applicant has not annexed entire documents as impugned in the present O.A.
5. Through their counter reply, it is also indicated by the respondents that the applicant was initially appointed as temporary Lekh Pal in 1981 and he was confirmed as Lekh Pal in 1988 and was promoted as Land Record Inspector through order dated 30.4.1993 by the District Magistrate Raibarelly. It is also argued that the applicant was relieved on 30.9.1991 from the post of Lekh Pal Raibarelly and joined the railway administration on 8.10.1991. The learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn our attention towards the circular of 1994,1998 and 2010 and has indicated that there is no policy in the railways for absorption as such, the applicant cannot be absorbed. It is also indicated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant was appointed as Lekh Pal Clerk on usual terms and conditions of deputation in the office of DRM, NR Lucknow Division Lucknow through notice dated 11.1.1991 and in pursuance thereof, he has been relieved by SDM, Sadar, Raibarelly on 30.9.1991 and he joined on 8.10.199. The respondents also drawn the attention of the Tribunal towards earlier orders passed by the CAT Principal Bench , New Delhi and has indicated that only on the basis of the direction issued by the Tribunal, the persons were absorbed and their absorption cannot be claim as a matter of right by the applicant. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon certain decisions of the Honble Apex Court in which it is indicated that the applicant does not have any right for absorption. The cases are:
(i) Rameshwar Prasad Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Limited and Others reported in (1999) 8 SCC 381;
(ii) Ratilal B. Soni and Others Vs. State of Gujarat and Others reported in 1990 (Supp) SCC 243;
(iii) Kunal Nanda V. Union of India and Another reported in (2000) 5 SCC 362;
(iv) State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Singh and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC 372;
(v) State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh and another along with State of Bihar and Others Vs. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Indra Nand Mishra and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94
6. Respondents has also relied upon a decision reported in (2007) 11 SCC 641 Doiwala Sehkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others and has pointed out that the Honble Apex Court not in one but in a number of cases has categorically indicated that the applicant is not having a right for absorption if the employee is on deputation. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon another decision reported in (1995) 1 SCC 421 Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents has also argued and submitted that the circular/letter dated 6.4.1998 deals with the permanent absorption of Patwari Clerk of Northern Railway and it is indicated that the authorities were surprised of the fact that the employee taken on deputation were contracted and confirmed by the railways. Learned counsel for the respondents has also indicted in their supplementary counter reply that the applicants claim for permanent absorption in Northern Railway was considered in accordance with law and past precedence by Shri Subodh Jain, Member Staff, Railway Board, New Delhi and accordingly it was found it as not feasible accordingly the impugned order dated 8.10.2013 is passed and there is no illegality in doing the same and present O.A. is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
8. On behalf of the applicant, rejoinder is filed and through rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant has drawn our attention towards seniority list of Lekhpal for the year 2010-11 issued by the State Government in which the name of the applicant does not find place and has also drawn our attention towards the order passed by the Honble High Court in which statement so rendered by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the Honble High Court is that the applicant is still continuing with Northern Railway and has not yet been relieved in compliance of the repatriation order, as such, he has not challenged the relieving order. It is also once again indicated by the applicant that in 2004, the respondents sought approval from the District Magistrate for absorption of the applicant and the same was accepted by the authorities concerned in June 2005 only. The learned counsel for the applicant has once again drawn the attention of the list annexed with the list of working Revenue Staff borrowing by the Railway from State Government and has indicated that not only one, but seven persons were absorbed since 1968 till 2000 and only the applicant has been relieved without any reason known to him. As such, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the present O.A. is deserves to be allowed and t he respondents be directed to absorb the applicant on the basis of the past precedence with all consequential benefits.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The facts in short are that the applicant was initially appointed as Lekhpal at Raibarelly on 7.9.1981 and subsequently, he was confirmed on the said post. The applicant stands relieved from Tehsil Raibarelly in 1991 to assume office in the Railways where he joined on 8.10.1991 since then till the date of impugned order, the applicant is working in the respondents organization. During the intervening period, vide letter dated 17.8.1994 a request was made for extension of applicants period of deputation for further period of three years up to 1997. The said request was accepted by the competent authorities i.e District Magistrate, Raibareilly through letter dated 22.9.1994 and no objection is given along with which the authorities has also given no objection in regard to permanent absorption of the applicant in the railways.
11. It is categorically indicated and the maximum period of deputation is 5 years but the respondent No. 6 taken consent from the landing department to continue the applicant on deputation beyond the period of 5 years. It is also to be indicated that the respondents through letter dated 30.12.2004, again requested the competent authority i.e. District Magistrate Raibarilly for permanent absorption of the applicant and has also indicated that the process of permanent absorption is under process and requested for issuing the no objection. The competent authority i.e. District Magistrate, Raibareilly once again given their no objection vide letter dated 15th June 2005 for permanent absorption of the applicant in the railways. By virtue of which, it is clear that the applicant was in the department since 1994, and even after, serving for about six more years, till June 2011, the respondents passed an order of repatriation which was challenged by the applicant vide O.A. No. 366 of 2011. The said O.A. was initially dismissed on the ground as the same has rendered infructuous. The applicant feeling aggrieved by the said order preferred the Writ Petition before the Honbe High Court and in the said Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant is still working with Northern Railway and has yet not been relieved towards the compliance of the repatriation order which is challenged in the O.A. 366 of 2011. The Honble High Court remanded back the matter to the Tribunal for deciding afresh by means of their order dated 18.11.2011. As such, it is clear that till 18.11.2011, the applicant was not repatriated back to his parent cadre. The said O.A. was finally disposed of by the Tribunal by means of an order dated 16.7.2012 through which the Tribunal directed the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for his permanent absorption in Northern Railway keeping in view the law and past precedence with all consequential benefits as per rules. It is also to be indicated that the said orders were passed keeping in view that the respondents absorbed seven Lekh Pals since 1968 till 2000.
12. When the order of the Tribunal was not complied with the applicant preferred a contempt petition and the said contempt petition got dismissed on 18th December, 2013 on the pretext with the order passed by the Tribunal is complied with and the respondents have already passed an order. The said order is challenged in the present O.A. The learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance of past precedence and has indicated that seven persons excluding the applicant namely Sri Hari Singh, Shri Sewa Singh, Shir Sarojoo Prasad, Shri Farooq Ahmad, Sri A. K. Saxena, Shri Mukhtar Husain Ansari and Sri Vinod Kumar Saxena were permanently absorbed in railways on 26.7.1968, 23.1.1971, 21.12.1983, 6.4.1998, 6.4.1998, 8.8.2000 and 8.8.2000 respectively. It is also indicated by the applicant that all the seven persons are absorbed after rendering sufficient number of service, and the applicant is working in railways on deputation basis since 1991 and has competed 22 years. It is also indicted by the learned counsel for the applicant that no rules of absorption are in existence in Railways. Not only this the reliance is also placed on the judgments/orders rendered by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1877 of 1993, 2428 of 1993 as well as 1943 of 1993. The similar issue was taken up before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal and only on the basis of a consideration direction 3 persons namely Shri Farooq Ahmad , Shri A. K. Saxena and Shri V. K. Saxena were absorbed whereas , similar direction is given in respect of the applicant but he has not been absorbed as such, it is a clear case of discrimination. Not only this, it is also argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that one Sri Mukhtar Husain Ansari has not even preferred any O.A. before the Tribunal and the respondents have directly absorbed him after rendering 17 years of service in 2000.
13. The learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance towards circular dated 6.4.1998 and also towards the impugned order and vehemently argued that in the impugned order, the respondents have wrongly interpreted the circular dated 6.4.1998 as the said circular does not speak about the policy not to treat the past cases as precedence. For ready reference, the circular dated 6.4.1998 is quoted below:-
No. E(NO) I-88/DP/34 6.4.1998 The General Manager (P) Northern Railway New Delhi. (Kind Atten: Shri P.K. Sharma CPO/IR) Sub:- Permanent absorption of Kanoongo/Patwari Clerk on Northern Railway.
Reference correspondence resting with your letter No. 752. E/21-IV/Eiibii(Loose) dated 6.3.98 on the above subject.
2. Approval of the competent authority is hereby communicated to the proposal contained in your letter dated 27.1.98 for absorption of S/Shri Farooq Ahmed and A. K. Saxena, Patwari Clerks on the Northern Railway.
3. Board also desire that the reasons for the following lapses should be indicted and responsibility fixed therefore:-
(i) Though Boards decision not agreeing with the Railways proposal was communicated vide their letter dated 28.7.93, the Railway issued instruction of the concerned employees only on 28.2.1997 i.e. after more than 31/2 years.
(ii) Initially, the Railways proposal was for absorption of 4 employees, as contained in their letter No. 752-E/21/IV EIII dated 22.4.1991. However, in the reference now made under their letter dated 27.1.98, there is no mention about the remaining 2 employees not covered by the judgment of the CAT dated 4.9.97.
(iii) No mention, much less explanation, has been given as to how the employee taken on deputation was promoted and confirmed by the Railway. Not only this, the fact of confirmation of the deputationist namely Sh. Farooq Ahmed who is one of the two applicants in the CAT case has come to the Boards notice not through the Railway Admn. but trough the judgement of the CAT.
(iv) Even though the judgment of CAT is dated 4.9.97 allowing the Railway three months time to consider absorption of one of t he applicants namely Shri A. K. Saxena in accordance with law and past precedents (including) that of other applicant Farooq Ahmed) with consequential benefits , reference to the Board has been made after about 5 months.
4. Please acknowledge receipt.
(J.S. Gusain)
14. Not only this, it is also vehemently argued by the applicant that even after the circular of 1998, the respondents sought permission from the competent authority for permanent absorption of the applicant through their letter dated 30.12.2004 which was duly reply by the District Magistrate Raibareilly the competent authority through his letter dated 15.6.2006. It is also vehemently argued and submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the railway have no agency for recruitment of revenue staff ( Lekhpal) and the railway always taken revenue staff from the State of Government on deputation basis and accordingly they absorbed/regularized seven number of revenue staff borrowed from the State Government.
15. The date of appointment of appointment as revenue staff is not available with the applicant in respect of three person whereas, he has mentioned the date appointment of four persons which are in the year 1973, 1978, 1981 and 1981 as revenue staff with the State Government.
16. The learned counsel for the respondents alleged that the impugned order contains 35 pages but the applicant has annexed only 2 pages and ignored the remaining pages as such, he has not approached the Tribunal with clear hands and pointed out that on this count itself, the O.A. is liable to be dismissed. We do not find any reasoning in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard. As regard, filing of the legal opinion of the railway advocate is concerned, we also feel that the applicant should have not annexed legal opinion which is confidential document and for this, we condemn the action of the applicant.
17. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon two more circulars/policies of railways one is of 5.12.1994 and another one is of 28.7.2010. The said circular dated 5.12.1994 reads as under:
Subject: Transfer on deputation/foreign service of Central Government Employees ex-cadre posts under the Central /State Governments / Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies, Universities/UT Administration, Local Bodies etc. and vice-versa-Regulation of pay, Deputation (duty) allowance, tenure of deputation/foreign service and other terms and conditions-regarding.
In continuation of Railway Boards letters No. F(E) II/ 88/DEP/1 dated 17.2.1989 and 1.11.1989 on the above subject, a copy of Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Depatt. Of Personnel & Training)s Office Memorandum No. 2/29/91-Estt. (Pay.III) dated 5th January, 1994 on the above subject , is sent herewith for your information and guidance. The orders contained therein will apply mutatis mutandis to Railway employees also.
Please acknowledge receipt.
18. As regard the circular dated 28.7.2010 is concerned, the same is also reiterates the same subject matter. The said circular dated 28.7.2010 reads as under:
Subject: Transfer on deputation/foreign service of Central Government Employees ex-cadre posts under the Central Governments/State Governments / Public Sector Undertakings/Autonomous Bodies, Universities/UT Administration, Local Bodies etc. and vice-versa-Regulation of pay, Deputation (duty) allowance, tenure of deputation/foreign service and other terms and conditions-regarding.
The terms & conditions of appointment on deputation/foreign service in accordance with Recruitment Rules of the ex-cadre posts, under the same or some other departments of Central Government, State Governments/Union Territories Administrations / Local Bodies or under Central State PSUs/Autonomous Bodies etc. and vice-versa contained in DOP&Ts OM No. 2/29/91-Estt.(Pay.II) dated 5th January, 1994(adopted in Boards office vide letter No. F(E)II/94/DE-1/1 dated 5.12.1994) as amended from time to time, have now been suitably revised and consolidated as per their OM NO. 6/8/2009-Estt.(Pay.II) dated 17th June, 2010. A copy of the same is sent herewith for information and guidance. The orders contained therein will apply mutatis-mutandis to Railway employees also.
The above orders will take effect from 1.1.2006 and shall be applicable to all officers who were on deputation on 1.1.2006 or appointed thereafter except for the revised rates of deputation (duty) allowance which shall be applicable for 1.9.2008 as mentioned below para 6.1. thereof.
Please acknowledge receipt.
19. None of these circulars such as 5.12.1994, 6.4.1998 or 28.7.2010 speaks about not to treat the past cases as precedence and should not pass any orders of permanent absorption of an employee in railways.
20. The learned counsel for the respondents has also indicated and relied upon certain decision of the Honle Apex Court such as Rameshwar Prasad (Supra) wherein, the Honble Ape Court has categorically indicated that it is a discretion of borrowing organization to absorb or not to absorb a deputationist, but simultaneously, it is also observed by the Honble Apex Court that it should not be discretionary and has also pleased to observe:-
The power of absorption, no doubt, is discretionary but is coupled with the duty not to act arbitrarily, or at the whim or caprice of any individual.
21. In the instant case, it is explicitly clear that the applicant is only discriminated and the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner for not absorbing the applicant as such, the action of the respondents is not appreciated.
22. In the case of Ratilal B. Soni and Others Vs. State of Gujarat(Supra), the Honble Apex Court though observed that the deputationist could be reverted to their parent cadre at any time and they do not get any right to be absorbed on the deputation post. But in the said case, the appellants were sent on deputation as Circle Inspectors in the State cadre. In January 1986 qualified officials became available for promotion to the post of Circle Inspectors in the State cadre and as such the appellants were reverted to their parent cadre of Talatis in the Panchayat Service. In the present case, the applicant continued for more than 21 years and the learned counsel for the respondents fail to indicate that the railway have any agency for recruitment of Revenue Staff (Lekhpal/Kanoongo). Not only this, the railway have always taken Revenue Staff from the State Government initially on deputation basis and till date they absorbed seven members of revenue staff in the railway administration.
23. In the case of Kunal Nanda V. Union of India (Supra), the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that a deputationist cannot assert and succeed in his claim for permanent absorption in the department where he works on deputation, unless his claim is based upon a statutory rule, regulation or order having the force of law. Once again, it is reiterated that without any rules or regulation in the respondents organization, the respondents organization absorbed seven similarly situated employees right from 1968 till 2000 and ignored the claim of the applicant whereas the landing department given there no objection for permanent absorption way back in 1995.
24. In the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Inder Singh(Supra), it is observed by the Honble Apex Court that deputationist is liable to be repatriated to his parent cadre/department on expiry of period of deputation. As per the rules, the deputation period is 5 years. The applicant came on deputation in 1991. In 1994 further extension of three years was sought and the same was done again in 2004 which is not only the extension , but no objection is also sought for absorbing the applicant in the Railways. As such, it is explicitly clear that the respondents were in need of the applicant, therefore they have not repatriated back the applicant after expiry period of 5 years. As such the applicant was expecting under the legitimate expectation that his services will be regularized/absorbed in the railway administration as they themselves sought consent by the landing department for permanent absorption of the applicant.
25. As regard two other judgments are concerned i.e. in the case of Doiwala Sekhkari Shram Samvida Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Another as well as State of Bihar and Others Vs. Kameshwar Prasad (Supra) , the Honble Apex Court observed that two wrongs do not make one right. In the present case, the respondents fail to give the justified reasons for not regularizing the applicant. Only it is indicated that in terms of the circular/letter dated 6.4.1998, it has been decided that the preference to the past precedence cannot be claim whereas, the bare perusal of the said circular it does not speak anything about the same apart from this, the respondents also failed to indicate that under what circumstances they absorbed the services of seven persons earlier.
26. As regard, the decision rendered by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma (Supra) , the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe that if an act is done to deceive the court then it is contemptuous. We fail to appreciate the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant has tried to deceive the Tribunal by not annexing the relevant circulars along with the impugned order.
27. On the basis of above observation, the case laws so cited by the respondents are not applicable in the instant case. It is once again reiterated that after resuming duty in the office of NR, Lucknow in 1991, the respondents sought permission for extension of applicant for three years in the year 1994 and even after completing the period of three years, the applicant was not repatriated back to his parent cadre and he continued to work. Again, in 2004, the respondents sought permission to absorb the applicant which was duly accorded by the competent authority in June 2005 and the applicant kept on working till 2011 and only in 2011, he was repatriated back which was challenged before this Tribunal and the Tribunal quashed the repatriation order. Since the orders passed by the Tribunal is not challenged before the Honble High Court as such, the same has attained finality.
28. The respondents were also directed to consider the case of the applicant and the respondents once again rejected the claim of the applicant without application of mind and also without considering the past precdents as such the decision is arbitrary and illegal. The applicant therefore challenged the said rejection order by means of the present O.A. It is also to be reiterated that Railway has no agency for recruitment of revenue staff of Lekhpal or Kanongoo and they always took from State Government on deputation basis. Not only this seven similarly situated persons were absorbed from 1968 till 2000 without any rules for absorption. The reason for not absorbing the applicant is best known to the authorities.
29. It is also to be indicted that out of seven, three persons were regularized on the basis of direction issued by the Tribunal for consideration and one persons namely Mukhtar Husain Ansari is absorbed directly by the Railway Board without any orders of the Tribunal whereas, the learned counsel for the applicant is not aware about the reasons for absorption of other three persons. For ready reference the operative portion of orders passed by the Tribunal in O.A Nos. 1877 of 1993 and 1943 of 1993 reads as under :
10. In the result Respondents impugned letter dated 20.07.93 as well as Respondents letter dated Feb. 1997 in so for as it relates to applicants Farooq Ahmed and A. K. Saxena are quashed and set aside. In respect of Applicant A.K. Saxena, Respondents are further directed to consider within three months form today his permanent absorption in Northern Railway. In accordance with law and past precedents (including that of applicant Farooq Ahmed), with all consequential benefits.
11. The two OAs stand disposed of in terms of para 10 above. No costs. and the operative portion of orders passed in the O.A. No. 2498/1993 reads as under:-
4. In the light of the position brought out above and following decision of this Tribunal in Farooq Ahmed and A.K. Saxenas case referred to earlier. We direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for permanent absorption keeping in view the past precedent including that of Farooq Ahmed and Saxenas case. The decision in this regard should be taken and communicated to the applicants within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
30. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after perusal of the entire records, we are of the considered view that the present O.A. requires interference by this Tribunal.
31. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 8.10.2013 and 15.12.2013 as contained in Annexure 1 and 2 are liable to be quashed and accordingly they are quashed. The respondents are directed to absorb the applicant as it has been done earlier in respect of other similarly situated persons.
32. With the above observation, O.A. is allowed. No order as to costs.
(Ms. Jayati Chandra) (Navneet Kumar)
Member (A) Member (J)
vidya