Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Harish Chand Giri vs Union Of India Through on 12 October, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA No.3396/2011 New Delhi this the 12th day of October, 2011. Honble Mr. M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Shri Harish Chand Giri, S/o Shri Bal Karan, Aged about 48 years, R/o Old Kot Gaon, H. No.115/H, Near Railway Phatak, Ghaziabad (UP) & has worked As Casual Labourer with the respondents. -Applicant (By Advocate Shri S.S. Tewari) -Versus- 1. Union of India through, The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi Railway Station, New Delhi. 3. The Permanent Way Inspector, Northern Railway, Ghaziabad (UP). -Respondents O R D E R
Applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
(i) To direct the respondents to Grant extension of benefit of order dt. 22/4/05 in OA 1298/05 (upheld in CWP 2428/06 dt. 17/3/06), Ram Swaroop vs UOI & ors passed by the Honble Tribunal.
(ii) To direct the respondents to include applicants name in the Live Casual Labour register in terms of Railway Board order dt. 28/8/87 as been done in the case of other similarly placed Casual Labourers.
(iii) Direct the respondents give the applicant all consequential benefits following from grant of relief (i) & (ii).
(iv) Award costs and
(v) Pass any other order/direction as may be deemed just & proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. As can be seen from the prayer clause, the grievance of the applicant is that his name be included in the live casual labour register in terms of Railway Boards letter dated 28.08.1987 by giving him the benefit of the judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1298/2005 Ram Swaroop v. Union of India,, as upheld by the High Court. At this stage, few facts may be noticed. The case projected by the applicant is that he joined as a khallasi in the Railway Department on 18.12.1980 and was disengaged on 14.10.1981. Applicant has placed on record a certificate dated 11.07.1988 purported to be issued by Permanent Way Inspector (Annexure C), whereby applicant is stated to have worked for 301 days. According to the applicant, it was incumbent upon the respondents to include his name in the live casual labour register in terms of the Railway Boards order dated 28.08.1987 and for that purpose he has also made representations to the authorities on 24.06.1988 and 12.11.2001 (Annexures B and D respectively. It is on the basis of these facts the applicant has filed the present OA praying that he may be extended similar benefits, as had been granted to the applicant in the case of Ram Swaroop (supra).
3. I have heard the learned counsel of applicant at admission stage. I am of the view that applicant is not entitled to any relief. Admittedly, services of the applicant, who was engaged as casual labour, were disengaged on 14.01.1981. The present OA has been filed after a lapse of 30 years and as can be seen from the material placed on record and information sought by the applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI), there is no casual labour record available with the department to show that applicant was engaged in the aforesaid capacity and had worked with the department. Thus, in view of what has been stated above, no direction can be issued to the respondents to include the name of the applicant in the live casual labour register, being hopelessly time barred. The matter is also squarely covered by the decision of the Full Bench of High Court of Delhi in CWP No.450/2001 Jagdish Prasad v. Union of India & Ors., 2003 (1) SLJ 407, whereby the Full Bench has overruled the decision rendered by the Division Bench in the case of Shish Pal Singh and Ors. v. Union of India, CWP No.5071/1999 and it was held that keeping the name in the live casual labour register creates no continuous cause of action. That was a case where the petitioner had worked as casual workman in 1986. In 1987 a Scheme to maintain live register of casual labour was introduced and the petitioner filed application in 1998 for a direction to include his name in that register. It was in this context the Full Bench, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court held that keeping the name in the live register of casual labour creates no continuous cause of action and in view of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, petitioner ought to have filed application within a period of 18 months from the date of filing of the said representation. It may be stated that the petitioner before the High Court made a representation in the year 1998, based on the direction given by the Tribunal in OA No.108/1993 decided on 7th April, 1995. The Tribunal rejected the OA being time barred, in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, as according to the Tribunal placing the name of casual labour on the casual labour register do not give rise to a continuous cause of action. The High Court also upheld the decision of the Tribunal whereby the case of the petitioner was rejected being barred by limitation. The ratio, as laid down by the Full Bench in the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra), is fully attracted in the instant case. Even if the contention of the applicant is accepted that he made representation on 24.06.1988 to include his name in casual labour register, in terms of the Railway Boards circular dated 28.08.1987, he should have approached the Tribunal within a period of 18 months in terms of the provisions contained in Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which he failed to do so.
4. Yet for another reason, applicant is not entitled to any relief. The Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 961 held that the Court should not give direction to the department to consider the stale claim, which may ultimately lead to consideration on merits at subsequent stages of litigation as if the cause of action stood revived due to fresh consideration. That was also a case where the services of the petitioner were terminated and he submitted a representation after 18 years. The plea taken by the respondents was that the record relating to termination of the applicant is not available. The Apex Court held that adverse inference for not producing the record could not have been drawn against the Department nor reinstatement with back-wages for 20 years could be ordered, ignoring the cessation of service or the lucrative alternative employment of the employee. Misplaced sympathy in such matters will encourage indiscipline, lead to unjust enrichment of the employee at fault and result in drain of public exchequer. Many a time there is also no application of mind as to the extent of financial burden, as a result of a routine order for back-wages. In the instant case also applicant is raking up the issue after a lapse of 30 years when the record regarding engagement of the applicant as casual labour is not available with the department, as can be seen from the information supplied to the applicant under RTI Act on 13.10.2010 (page 8 of the paper-book).
5. Further, the applicant cannot also draw any assistance from the judgment in the case of Ram Swaroop (supra). As can be seen from the said judgment the applicant was agitating his right since 1992. That was a case where the applicant worked under different spells upto 24.05.1982 and filed the OA in 1992. The Railway Board circular was issued on 28.08.1987. It was in this factual background that the Tribunal issued a direction, relying upon the judgment of the Allahabad Bench of the Tribunal in OA-1220/1998 that it was the duty of the respondents to maintain live casual labour register even if it has been deleted due to earlier instructions. It was under these circumstances the Tribunal directed the applicant to make a representation to the respondents along with full particulars of his service with proof, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and on receipt of such representation, respondents shall take necessary action, in accordance with law, within a period of three months under intimation to the applicant.
6. As already stated above, no such direction can be given in the case of the applicant, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C. Jacob (supra). Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, I am of the view that the applicant is not entitled to any relief. The OA is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(M.L. Chauhan) Member (J) San.