Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Prakash Yadav vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 11 December, 1998
JUDGMENT S.P. Biswas, Member (A)
1. The applicant, appointed as a voluntary ticket collector, is aggrieved by respondents action in disengaging his services, although cases of other voluntary ticket collectors. Similarly placed, have been favourably considered by the respondents. As per the applicant, his case is well covered in the terms of the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of S.K. Mukherjee and Ors. v. UOI (OA No. 10/85), Mohd. Abdul Hussain and Ors. v. UOI (OA 215/86), and AC Jha and Ors. v. UOI (OA 214/86) all decided by the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal on 25.3.86 and 3.12.86 respectively. Judgment in the case of S.P. Mukherjee (supra) has been reported in AIR 1986(2) page 7. SLPs filed by the respondent-Railways against the decisions of this Tribunal in the aforesaid OAs have also been dismissed.
2. Applicant would argue that though the Railway Administration has implemented the judgment, they have failed to extend the benefit of the same to the applicant herein illegally. Applicant has, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondents to re-engage him, grant him temporary status after completion of 120 days of continuous service and also offer him the benefit of regularisation. Drawing strength from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Lal Berry v. UOI SLR 1973(2) 152, the applicant contended that when a citizen has obtained a declaration from the Court of law, others placed in similar circumstances can rely upon the sense of responsibility of the respondents to extend the benefit of the judgment to them also without forcing them to go to the Court.
3. Respondents in their reply have averred that voluntary ticket collectors were not engaged against any existing vacancies. Nor were they given any specific job. They were only called upon to assist the existing ticket collectors at important stations. The scheme was started with the intention to help the regular ticket checking staff in controlling the ticketless travellers. Respondents have also averred that the scheme of engaging voluntary ticket collectors was abandoned as far back as in 1985. They were initially engaged during the operation of the said scheme and were paid @ Rs. 8 per day as pocket allowance and were posted at important stations. Respondents submit that as the scheme did not have any impact on the ticketless travelling, the same had to be given up. Therefore, when the scheme stood abandoned, the applicant is not entitled for his re-engagement. Respondents have also raised the plea of limitation.
4. When the matter came up for hearing on 9.12.1998, learned Counsel for the applicant brought to our notice the judgment of this Tribunal in OAs 1859/91. 2180/91 and 2305/91 decided on 7.2.98. Details in paras 4 to 6 of the aforesaid judgment support the claim of the applicant. We extract those 3 paras below:
"4. When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned Counsel for the applicants brought to our notice a judgment of the Tribunal in OA 314/92--Raj Kumar Roy and Ors. v. UOI and Ors.. In that judgment reliance is placed on the directions given by the Apex Court in UOI and Ors. v. Belal Mimed and Ors. decided in Civil Appeal No. 9262/95 and also UOI and Ors. v. S.C. Biswas and Ors. The above OA was disposed of with the following directions:--
"6. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to re-engage the applicants as volunteer/Mobile Ticket Collectors/Booking Clerks and to consider them for regularisation and absorption after completion of three years service subject to their fulfilment of the minimum qualifications laid down for direct recruitment."
5. The learned Counsel for the applicants, therefore, prays that in these cases also the Tribunal should consider granting the similar reliefs.
6. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits that in the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Belal Ahmed (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken into account the directions given in UOI v. Sagar Chand Biswas (Civil Appeal No. 1015/96) (supra). The aforesaid judgment has also been extracted in UOI v. Belal Ahmed. The learned Counsel submits that the directions given OA 314/92-Raj Kumar Roy and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. have in fact provided relief on a wider scale than what was provided in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Sagar Chand Biswas and UOI v. Belal Ahmed (supra). She also submits that the scheme is no longer in operation and it would, therefore, be difficult to consider granting the applicants regular employment under the aforesaid Scheme, as the scheme itself was purely voluntary in nature and no substitute scheme has been put in place."
SLP filed against the aforesaid order dated 7.2.97 in OAs 1859/91 and 2180/91 has been dismissed on 14.7.98.
5. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. It is an admitted position that the Civil Appeals were decided by the Apex Court after the abandonment of the Scheme by the Railways. We cannot, therefore, ignore the reliefs provided by the Apex Court in similar cases in the aforesaid appeals. The reliefs claimed in this application relate to re-engagement, temporary status as well as regularisation. After giving our careful consideration on the facts and circumstances of the case and also the reliefs granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in similar cases, we are of the considered view that this applicant also should be given reliefs on the same lines as given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid appeals. As regards the plea of limitation, it may be mentioned that this Scheme itself was further extended by the Railways upto September, 1992 while this OA was filed on 28.10.92. The plea of limitation, therefore, cannot be sustained.
6. We also find that the cases of volunteers to curb ticketless travelling appointed on daily wages/hourly rates basis were recently adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.C. Dey and Ors. v. UOI and Ors. JT 1998(6) SC 482 decided on 27.8.98. That was the case where the Calcutta Bench of this Tribunal provided certain reliefs to the applicants in OAs No. 139/88, 420/88 and 439/88, decided on 31.7.90. Pursuant to the aforesaid orders of the Calcutta Bench, the Railway Administration of Asansol Division of Eastern Railway fixed the pay of applicants in one of those applications notionally with effect from the date on which they were granted temporary status by the Tribunal. When the same benefit was not extended by the Sealdah Division of that very Zonal Railway, the aggrieved persons approached the Tribunal by way of OAs No. 1197, 1240 and 1243/ 93 and prayed for similar directions to the Union of India. The Tribunal dismissed those applications and that is how the case was ultimately filed by S.C, Dey and Ors. (supra) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Tribunal had held that the order of 31.7.90 was correct and does not deserve to be interfered with. The order dated 31.7.90 was that "Benefit of pay and allowances was to be given only from the date of order and till then they were to be paid daily wages @ Rs. 8 per day." The Apex Court thus upheld the decision of the Tribunal in the case of those volunteers engaged for the purpose of assisting regular ticket collectors.
7. Taking into consideration the details aforesaid, we allow this application with a direction to the respondents to re-engage the applicant as voluntary ticket collector on the same terms and conditions as were given to others at the time of their initial engagements, consider offering temporary status as well as regularisation subject to his fulfilling the necessary qualifications and other minimum requirements in accordance with inter-se seniority between similarly placed persons.
8. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.