Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Singh vs M/O Railways on 30 November, 2022
1
Item No. 6 (C-III) O.A. No. 2549/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 2549/2019
This the 30th day of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
1. Ram Singh, S/o Late Ram Swaroop
Age 40 years,
Worked as Cook/Helper (Group-D)
2. Vishnu Kumar, S/o Late Sohan Lal,
Age 45 years,
Worked as Cook/Helper (Group-D)
Both R/o. K-61, V. K. Dutta Colony,
Jorbagh, New Delhi.
3. Amit Kumar, S/o Surendra Singh
Age 29 years,
Worked as Cook/Helper (Group-D)
R/o. 2/277, Trilokpuri
New Delhi-110 091
4. Genda Singh, S/o Late Bhagwan Das
Age 29 years,
Worked as Cook/Helper (Group-D)
5. Vicky, S/o Mohan Singh,
Age 24 years,
Worked as Cook/Helper (Group-D)
Both R/o. F-205, Hari Nagar-II
Badarpur, New Delhi-44. ...Applicants
(By Advocate : Mr. Dhananjay Garg and Mr. Ishaan Tiwari)
2
Item No. 6 (C-III) O.A. No. 2549/2019
Versus
1. The Chairman
Railway Board, Rail Bhawan
New Delhi-110 001.
2. The General Manager
Northern Railway
Baroda House, New Delhi-110 001.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager
Northern Railway
Moradabad Division,
Moradabad, U.P. ...Respondents
(None)
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Member (J) The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were appointed on various different posts i.e., the applicant no.1 was engaged as canteen worker since 2005. He was also issued Identity Cards etc., and Railway Quarter Type I was also allotted to him on 21.12.2011. The applicant nos. 2 and 4 were appointed as cook in the year 2008 and 2005 respectively. Applicant nos. 3 and 5 were appointed as Helper in the year 2004 and 2013 respectively and all of them worked continuously till 22.02.2014. 3
Item No. 6 (C-III) O.A. No. 2549/2019
2. They made a representation to the respondents that they should be considered for relaxation as they have worked for more than 10 years quoting Mohan Singh & Ors. vs. The Chairman Railway Board & Ors., judgment where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under :-
"We, therefore, direct the Respondents to consider regularizing the services of the Appellant presently serving as canteen workers in consonance with the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806 and take requisite action within six months of the receipt of this judgment. Further, as and when the subject posts fall vacant the Respondents shall be bound to fill the posts by a regular process of selection. The Appellants in the present case shall be allowed to compete in the regular recruitment and the Respondents shall grant to them appropriate age relaxation as well as grant proper weightage for their having worked in the subject Canteen.
19. There cannot be any cavil that the necessity for canteen amenities to be available where more than 250 workmen are engaged, is an essential facet of human or labour rights. Managements and employers are duty bound to provide these basic facilities."
3. Notices were issued to the respondents however, no reply has been filed by the respondents despite giving several opportunities to them.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants has drawn our attention to Annexure A/3 wherein judgment of Mohan Singh & Ors. vs. The Chairman Railway Board & Ors. is 4 Item No. 6 (C-III) O.A. No. 2549/2019 annexed wherein similarly situated canteen workers have approached the Court for regularization of their services with the Railway. Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with this issue by relying upon the decision in M.M.R. Khan vs. Union of India (1990) Supp SCC 191, and ultimately was of the view at para 18 that the respondents should consider the regularization of the appellants who was serving as canteen workers in consonance with the principles laid down in the State of Karnataka Vs. Uma Devi - AIR 2006 SC 1806. The said para is reproduced below :-
"18. Therefore, in the light of the settled principle enunciated hereinabove, we hold that the subject Canteen is a „Statutory Canteen‟ under the Factories Act, 1948 and that the learned Single Judge had arrived at the correct conclusion. In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in taking a contrary view. We, therefore, allow these Appeals. We set aside the impugned Judgment passed by the High Court, and direct the Respondents to treat the subject Canteen at Moradabad as a Statutory Canteen either under Section 46 of the Act or the relevant clauses of the Indian Railway Establishment Management. However, so far as the Appellants are concerned, we find it difficult to condone or ignore the fact that they were not appointed as per the regular recruitment procedure. To pass an order regularizing the services of all workers employed therein would necessarily imply ratification of appointments given outside the Constitutional scheme. We, therefore, direct the Respondents to consider regularizing the services of the Appellants presently serving as canteen workers in consonance with the principles laid down in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi AIR 2006 SC 1806 and take requisite action within six months 5 Item No. 6 (C-III) O.A. No. 2549/2019 of the receipt of this Judgment. Further, as and when the subject posts fall vacant the Respondents shall be bound to fill the posts by a regular process of selection. The Appellants in the present case shall be allowed to compete in the regular recruitment and the Respondents shall grant to them appropriate age relaxation as well as grant proper weightage for their having worked in the subject Canteen.
19. There cannot be any cavil that the necessity for canteen amenities to be available where more than 250 workmen are engaged, is an essential facet of human or labour rights. Managements and employers are duty bound to provide these basic facilities."
As per Rule 141, the judgment cited by the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding upon all the Courts below the Hon'ble Supreme Court and all concerned authorities. Thus, we have no hesitation to direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for regularization in accordance with the law laid down in Uma Devi (supra).
5. In view of the above, this OA stands disposed of qua above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Tarun Shridhar) (Ashish Kalia) Member (A) Member (J) /Mbt/