Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Ramesh Chand vs Union Of India And Ors. Through on 28 May, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No.2044/2015 New Delhi this the 28th day of May, 2015 Honble Mr. G. George Paracken, Member (J) Honble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) Shri Ramesh Chand S/o Surgan Singh Age about 50 year Working as Booking Clerk Under Station Supdt Northern Railway, Delhi Main Delhi. ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M S Reen) Versus Union of India and Ors. through 1. The Secretary Ministry of Railways Railway Board Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi. 3. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi. ...Respondents ORDER (ORAL)
G. George Paracken, Member(J) The applicant is seeking the following reliefs in this OA:-
8.1 That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to examine the case of the applicant in the light of Nand Kishore case as well as Nabi Mohds, Kusum Maliks & Raja Rams case and decided his pending representation dated 01.05.2015 with all consequential benefits.
8.2 That this Honble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to extend the same benefits to the applicant which was extended to Shri Nand Kishore & Others in O.A. No. 551/2002 upheld upto the leval of Honble Supreme Court later on the respondents vide their order dated 11.1.2012 implemented the direction of this Honble Tribunal as well as Nabi Mohds case in OA No. 1706/2008 and Kusum Maliks & Raja Rams case both judgments have been implemented by the same respondents and same benefits extended to other similar colleagues of the applicant.
2. According to the applicant his case is squarely covered by an earlier order of this Tribunal dated 30.04.2004 in OA No.551/2002 Nand Kishore and Ors. v. UOI and Anr. The operative part of the said order reads as under:-
9. Vide letter dt. April 21,1982, the condition for absorption against regular vacancies of volunteer/Mobile Booking Clerks was possession of minimum qualifications required service of three years as Volunteer/Mobile Booking Clerks. The screening for absorption was to be done by a Committee of Officers including the Chairman/a Member of the Railway Service Commission concerned. Vide letter dated 20/4/85, it was further prescribed that to be eligible for screening a candidate should interalia be within the prescribed age limit after taking into account the total period of his engagement as Volunteer/Mobile Screening a candidate should interalia be within the prescribed age limit after taking into account the total period of his engagement a Voluntary/Mobile Booking Clerks. Clearly, respondents letters dated 21/4/82 and 20/4/85 do not prescribe any training for these applicants who had been engaged as Mobile Booking Clerks before 17/11/86. Obviously, their regularisation was in the nature of the special recruitment which was to be governed by the conditions prescribed in letters dated 21/4/82 and 20/4/85. As these circulars do not prescribe training and on circulars, applicants had been screened by a High regularised on completion of three years and no 1095 actual working days. Naturally, their seniority has also to be related to the date of the initial appointment as Mobile Booking Clerks.
10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, OA succeeds and is allowed. Annexure A-1, dated 11/1/01 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to treat the applicants as regularised after completion of three years of continuous service from the date of applicants initial appointment with consequential seniority. No costs.
3. The applicant has also requested the respondents to extend the same benefits to him, but the respondents have not taken any decision in the matter so far. He has, therefore, filed this OA seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. In view of the above submission of the learned counsel for the applicant, we dispose of this OA at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicant in the light of the aforesaid order of this Tribunal. If his case is also covered by the said order, he shall also be extended the same benefits in accordance with rules. The respondents shall pass appropriate order in the matter under intimation to the applicant within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (G. George Paracken)
Member (A) Member (J)
/vb/