Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
K.N.Rajappan vs Union Of India on 30 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A.No.1220/12
Monday this the 30th day of September 2013
C O R A M :
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
K.N.Rajappan,
S/o.K.Nanu,
Retired Mechanical Fitter (Construction),
Southern Railway, Madras Egmore, Chennai - 8.
Residing at Alammoottil Padinjattethil,
Thekkinkara, Pullichira P.O., Quilon District. ...Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.T.C.Govindaswamy)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India
represented by the General Manager,
Southern Railway, Headquarters Office,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 3.
2. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
Southern Railway, Chennai Division,
Park Town P.O., Chennai - 3. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Sunil Jacob Jose)
This application having been heard on 23rd September 2013 this
Tribunal on 30th September 2013 delivered the following :-
O R D E R
HON'BLE Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER The claim of the applicant in this O.A is for a declaration that he is entitled to be treated as having attained the status of a temporary employee by operation of law with effect from 1.5.1978, 120 days after his initial engagement as a casual labourer on 1.1.1978. In fact, temporary status has been granted to him with effect from 1.1.1983 and the applicant's services were regularized with effect from 22.1.1997 and he superannuated on 31.1.2007.
2. Earlier the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.284/08 claiming gratuity and monthly pension with effect from 1.2.2007 which was allowed. While allowing the O.A the respondents were directed to act upon the basis of period of regular service coupled with temporary status prior to regularization. The applicant had already enjoyed the benefit made available to him by the order of this Tribunal dated 1st April 2009. He had applied for two sets of passes whereas he was granted only one set as he did not have 25 years of service reckoned from his temporary status service (1.1.1983). With a view to availing of two passes the applicant has filed this O.A as the same is consequential benefits that may accrue in the event of his temporary status service being reckoned from 1.5.1978.
3. The respondents have contested the O.A. They have raised preliminary objection of limitation and have also stated that the applicant was employed as a Project casual labourer and his regularization is in the wake of a scheme framed by the Railways in accordance with the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Inderpal Yadav. They have also reflected in the counter that earlier the Project casual labourers were absorbed against Group D/Group C vacancies of Open Line and the applicant was also one among them. But he refused to accept the empanelment for absorption as Gangman and preferred to continue as Project casual labourer (Fitter). According to them, the automatic conferment of temporary status on completion of 120 days does not apply in his case. They have referred to the decision of the Principal Bench in O.A.1449/02 vide AISLJ 2007 (3) (CAT) 149. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the legal issue involved in this case is whether the applicant belong to Open Line or Project casual labourer. According to the counsel, he was inducted in the Open Line and he was sent to Construction Wing. His case is not one of Project casual labourer in which case alone Inderpal Yadav decision and the scheme framed would apply. Again, according to the counsel, all that he claims is that the temporary status should be reckoned from 1.5.1978 which would enable him to get one more set of pass.
4. Counsel for the respondents reiterated the contention raised in the counter especially with reference to the limitation as well as the decision of the Principal Bench.
5. Arguments were heard and documents perused. The applicant has not produced any document to show that he was engaged in the Open Line as a casual labourer in which event he would be eligible for automatic temporary status on completion of 120 days of service. Rather the counsel has stated that the respondents have not indicated against which project the applicant was engaged as a casual labourer. The fact that the applicant's services were regularized with effect from 1.1.1983 clearly goes to show that his was a case of Project casual labourer and it is in accordance with the scheme framed in pursuance of Inderpal Yadav judgment that his regularization has taken place. The applicant would not have kept quiet in May, 1978 on his not having been granted temporary status if others engaged along with him had been so granted. The Tribunal is not convinced that the applicant's initial engagement was not in Project casual labourer. As such, grant of temporary status from 1.1.1983 is in order.
6. Counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing referred to decision dated 29th August 2008 in O.A.No.12/08 & O.A.No.23/08. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.(C) No.33412/05.
7. Earlier in our order dated 1st April, 2009 in O.A.284/08 the direction was that the temporary status prior to regularization should also be included. This has been rightly done by the respondents effective from 1.1.1983 as could be seen from Annexure A-2. This has issued to the applicant at the time of his retirement. The applicant ought to have challenged the date of his temporary status service in case he was aggrieved. This was not done either immediately after his retirement nor at the time when he approached the Tribunal vide O.A.284/08. In the case of O.A.No.12/08 & O.A.No.23/08 the claim for temporary status was made by the applicants therein immediately on superannuation unlike the case of the applicant.
8. In Ground (a) in O.A.284/08 the fact of the applicant's grant of temporary status with effect from 1.1.1983 has been reflected and there has been no claim that it should be advanced to 1.5.1978.
9. In view of the fact that there has been a considerable delay in filing this O.A coupled with the fact that no concrete proof has been given by the applicant to establish his claim that he was not engaged as Project casual labourer, the O.A, lacking in merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Dated this the 30th day of September 2013) Dr.K.B.S.RAJAN JUDICIAL MEMBER asp