Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jagdish Narain vs Union Of India on 19 May, 2023
(Oral order)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
Bench Allahabad
****
Original Application No. 1010 of 2010
This the 19th Day of May, 2023.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.K. Shrivastava, Member (J)
1. Jagdish Narain S/o Baboo Ram R/o Village and Post Chakwa
Bujurg, District Etawah.
2. Prakash Chandra S/o Sri Ram Das R/o
3. Rajendra S/o Sri Ram Das R/o Behind Railway Colony, Subhash
Nagar, Gali No.7, Kashipur Udham Singh Nagar.
4. Bhukan Lal S/o Sri Meva Ram, R/o Village and Post Shekhpura,
District Rampur.
5. Om Prakash S/o Sri Nanhe Mistri, R/o Village and Post Sekhupur,
District Badaun.
6. Jagdish Saran S/o Sri Mewaram, R/o Village Jalalpur, Post
Sultanupar Patti, District Rampur.
7. Ganesh Prasad S/o Sri Bhagwati Prasad R/o Mohalla Aryanagar,
Bajpur, District Sultanpur.
8. Jhhajhhan Lal S/o Sri Bhajan Lal R/o Village Jasanpur, Post
Sultanpur, District Rampur.
9. Mohd. Haneef S/o Abdul Bahid Khan R/o Railway Colony, Kasipur
District Nainital (Uttarakhand).
10. Hafeej Khan S/o Abdul Vaheed Khan R/o Railway Colony, Kasipur
District Nainital (Uttarakhand).
11. Tribhuwan Yadav S/o Sri Sitaram Yadav, R/o...
12. Purshottam S/o Brij Lal, R/o Village and Post Bagapar, District
Gorakhpur.
13. Shiv Shanker S/o Sri Ishwari R/o Village Awadhpur, Post Sardar
Nagar, District Gorakhpur.
14. Kalpanath Singh S/o Sri Deen Dayal Singh, R/o Village Selar
Bazar, Post Line Bazar, District Gopalganj (Bihar).
15. Ram Awadh Yadav S/o Sri Sumer Yadav R/o Village Bhadariya,
Post Badagaon, District Ghazipur.
16. Jahendra Singh Chauhan, S/o Sri Ram Kishun Singh Chauhan,
R/o Village Baragam, Post Saidpur, District Ghazipur.
17. Tejendra Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Baijaintri Singh, R/o Village
Baragam, Post Bhurkura, District Ghazaipur.
18. Heera Lal Sah S/o Sri Indra Sah R/o Village Nigna Jagannath,
Post - Sri Ganamath District Gopalganj (Bihar).
19. Awadhesh Yadav S/o Sri Ram Dhari Yadav, R/o Village Nigna
Jagannath, Post - Sri Ganamath District Gopalganj (Bihar).
20. Ram Preet Prasad S/o Sri Lakshan Prasad R/o Village Jamli, Post
Somli, District Deoria.
21. Raj Kapoor S/o Bhutti Prasad R/o Village and Post Sidhave,
District Deoria.
22. Rajendra S/o Sri MOti, R./o Village Bhagaura, Post Sahjanwa,
District Gorakhpur.
23. Nand Lal S/o Sri Ram Charan, R/o Ramughat, Post Thawaipar,
District Gorakhpur.
24. Pardeshi S/o Ram Asre, R/o Village Ramughat, Post Thawaipar,
District Gorakhpur.
...........Applicants
By Advocate: Shri Dharmendra Tiwari
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Izzatnagar.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, N.E. Railway, Varanasi.
4. Assistant Divisional Engineer, N.E. Railway, Kashipur.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra
ORDER
Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, counsel for the applicant. Shri M.P. Mishra, counsel for the respondents.
2. This OA has been filed by the 24 applicants for the following relief(s) :-
"(i) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the impugned notification dated 06.12.2007 and order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 and 4 (Annexure A-1 and A-2 to this Original Application respectively.)
(ii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to issue direction to the respondents to appoint the applicants in Group 'D' post against the existing vacancy in the respondent organization.
(iii) This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant age relaxation as has been decided in OA No.828/01 and further regularized their services from the date their juniors have been appointed.
(iv) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicants.
(v) Award the costs of the original application in favour of the applicants."
3. As per the application, the applicants challenged the notification dated 06.12.2007 (Annexure A-1) issued by the respondents for filling up the Grade-D post in Norther Eastern Railway and DLW, Varanasi and the order dated 28.05.2010 passed by the respondent No.1 and 4 by which it is stated that the consideration of the application filed by the applicants is not possible today.
4. It is submitted by the applicants that they worked for more than the sufficient number of days. They were casual labourer during the period between 1980-81 and some of the applicants worked up to 1988-89. In para 4.3 of the OA, the details have been given about the working days of each applicant. The period of working is also mentioned for each applicant except the applicant- Bhukan Lal, Ganesh Prasad and Raj Kapoor. It is submitted that after discharging the duties for the minimum required days for grant of temporary status, the applicants shall be deemed to be acquired temporary status and the retrenchment of those casual labourers from service without complying with the requirement under Section 25 of Industrial Dispute Act is illegal. Section 25 of the I.D. Act specifically shows that no workman in any industry shall be retrenched by the employer unless the workman is given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and for the period of notice, the workman will be paid wages for the period of notice.
5. It is further submitted that in compliance of the Supreme Court order, the respondents had opened a Casual Labour Register to include the names of all Project Casual Labourers in this Register. The names of all the applicants find place in the aforesaid register but the employment was not given further. It is also mentioned in Para-4.8 of the OA that some juniors have been appointed or re-engaged. In Para 4.10, a list of 27 other employees is also given.
6. The respondents strongly opposed the aforesaid petition. It is submitted that the claim of applicants cannot be accepted. The respondents submitted the para-wise reply. In para-22, the conditions are mentioned for grant of temporary status.
7. Another Single Bench of this Tribunal decided the OA No.31/2019-Jagdish & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (along with 18 others OA on 09.05.2023. Detailed facts of each case are mentioned in the aforesaid order. The court also considered various case laws and examined the matter in the light of established law and the facts of the case.
8. All questions raised in the present case were also considered by the aforesaid Bench. The applicants in this case claimed the age relaxation. While Bench also considered the aforesaid question in Para-64 to 70 with other relevant questions. It will be useful to refer the Para-64 to 70 of the aforesaid order :-
"64. From the perusal of records, it is evident that applicants in all the OAs were engaged during the period 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1997 and 2000. Thereafter, they were retrenched / disengaged. It is also evident from the records that all the applicants have completed minimum tenure for being granted temporary status. In compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, respondents prepared the live casual labour register for the purpose of absorption of the casual labours who were working by that time and ex-casual labours who have completed the prescribed length of service. It is further evident from the record that respondents held screening of the applicants consequent to which they were declared unsuitable and due to this reason they were not absorbed / regularized. It is also evident that a few of the casual labours had approached before this Bench, Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad and even the Apex Court for the redressal of their grievance. Some of the petitions filed by them were allowed and many of the casual labours were absorbed but few petitions were dismissed and no relief was granted to them either by the Hon'ble High Court or by the Apex Court. In some cases, age relaxation has been granted for the absorption of the causal labours but in many cases no such relief was granted to them. It is also evident from the record that almost all the applicants in all the OAs have crossed the maximum age limit prescribed for service meaning thereby that if they were absorbed earlier they would have already stood retired as on date.
65. Submissions of the learned counsels for the applicants are of many fold, mainly on the ground that all the applicants were included in the live casual register and thus they were to be absorbed on their seniority basis but respondents completely ignoring their seniority did not absorb them and instead juniors to those applicants have been absorbed. It has also been argued that this situation arose due to inaction on the part of respondents. Had the applicants been absorbed / regularized timely, they would have been retired by today. Thus, referring to the aforesaid argument in all the original applications, learned counsels for the applicants have submitted that applicants must not be compelled to suffer due to inaction on the part of respondents. Referring to the judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed by Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 75 of 2013 the operative portion of which has already been quoted in the previous paragraphs, learned counsels for the applicants have submitted that in the said judgment, respondents were directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to a similarly placed petitioner citing that he must not suffer irreparable losses due to inaction of respondents. Now the question before the Court is whether this Bench is empowered to give age relaxation to the applicants and applicants in case they have retired, can they be granted monetary compensation. To answer this question, it would be in the fitness of the things to retrace the law (as has already been quoted in previous paragraphs) laid down by the Apex Court in Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. Case (supra) and Hanichal Roy (supra) case. Taking the above rulings into consideration with regard to the question this Tribunal is posed with herein above, certainly in the facts and circumstances of the present cases, Tribunal cannot give age relaxation to the applicants particularly when all the applicants have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit.
66. As regards to the directions to be issued for payment of compensation to the applicants who have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit, a screening was held during the period 05.05.2008 - 24.09.2008 and in most of the OAs, the result of the screening committee has not been challenged by the applicants. If the counter affidavits of the respondents are taken into consideration on this point, it is also evident that applicants were declared unsuitable for the reason that they were overage. Although this reason has not been specifically mentioned in the orders passed by the screening committee, the opinion of the Court would not have been otherwise even if the above reason was mentioned.
67. Although in Ambika Singh case (supra) which was also upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, age relaxation was granted to the petitioner, however, this relief could not be extended in all the cases as in rem. Each case has its own facts and circumstances and the controversy therein must be decided on the basis of facts and circumstances of that particular case.
68. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Uma Devi case (supra) has clearly held (as has already been quoted in the previous paragraphs) that casual labour has no right to seek regularization. This view of the Apex Court came in a Constitution Bench deciding the similar issue. The Apex Court had observed that when there is no sanctioned post, there is no question of regularizing the irregular appointment made against the rule and regulation.
69. Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in a similar casual labour matter in Ashok Kumar case (supra) has also dismissed the plea taken by the casual labours for giving them age relaxation for their absorption.
70. Now the question is whether respondents can be directed to give the notional benefit to the applicants who have crossed the maximum prescribed age limit. It may be mentioned here that since result of the screening committee has not been challenged, some of the applications filed in the year 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 have been filed after a lapse of many years since the cause of action actually arose. This has been done only because some of those casual labours have been granted benefit of absorption. Since applicants of the aforesaid OAs have approached before the court at a belated stage, the relief sought by them cannot be accepted. Similar view was expressed by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) case wherein the Court has held that if there are delays and latches in filing the OA before the Tribunal and the applicants were sleeping over their rights, they cannot be extended the benefit as claimed by them. The aggrieved persons were not conscious about their rights and have approached before the Tribunal at a belated stage. Thus, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Srivastava case (supra), plea taken by the applicants on this ground can also not be accepted."
9. Therefore, it appears that the present OA is identical to the aforesaid case and all the questions raised in this OA have been considered and decided by the co-ordinate Bench.
10. In view of this court, there is no any ground is found for taking a different view. This Bench also completely agrees with the aforesaid finding of the co-ordinate Bench. Hence, looking to the aforesaid, it can be said that the OA is not having any merit. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. All the pending MAs, (if not decided) will be treated as disposed of.
(Justice B.K. Shrivastava) Member (J) Sushil