Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Jawahar Lal vs General Manager N C Rly on 27 February, 2025
Reserved on 20.02.2025
Central Administrative Tribunal
Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
th
This the 27 day of February, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Original Application No. 797 of 2012
Jawahar Lal S/o Late Moti Lal aged about 57 years R/o Village- Ismailpur
Kotawa, Post Office-Manauri, District -Kaushambi.
........... APPLICANT
By Advocate: Shri Ravi Sharma
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, North Central Railway, Head
Quarters Office, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, Head Quarters Office,
Subedarganj, Allahabad.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, DRM Office,
Allahabad.
..........RESPONDENTS
By Advocate: Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J) Shri Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Mahendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
2. The instant original application has been filed seeking following relief:
"(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the DRM/NCR/Allahabad, Respondent no. 3 to regularize the services of the applicant from 6.6.1976 i.e. date of termination of the applicant from Railway service to 6.11.1986, the date of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits i.e. fixation of pay with continuation of the service with ASHISH KUMAR effect from 1.1.1976 to 6.1.1986, regularization against 1 permanent post and seniority and other benefits at par with juniors to the applicant as allowed by the Hon'ble Munsif/West Allahabad 21.12.77 duly affirmed by vide judgment dated Hon'ble District Judge Allahabad vide judgment dated 7.6.1985 and affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court Allahabad vide judgment dated 9.12.2010.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent to fix the pay of the applicant from 1.1.1974/6.6.1976 to 6.11.1986 allowing annual increments with fixation of pay as per 4th, 5th,& 6th Central Pay Commission and also to make payment of arrears of salary to the applicant on this account with interest @ 12% per annum.
(iii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent to allow higher grade to the applicant against restructuring of cadre, under ACP and MACP scheme after taking into account his service from 1.1.1974 to 6.11.1986 and onwards to till this date and to fix his pay accordingly and to pay arrear of pay with interest @12% per annum.
(iv) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass any other suitable order or direction as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(v) That Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to to allow heavy cost in favour of the applicant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that applicant''s services were terminated on 05.06.1976. Applicant challenged the said termination order before the Civil Court and suit was decreed. Judgment and order passed in the civil suit was challenged in the civil appeal before the District Judge which was dismissed. Thereafter, the applicant was re-engaged as per service record w.e.f. 06.11.1986. It is also averred that wages from the period between termination and re-engagement was not paid. Thereafter applicant filed suit before the Labour Commissioner under Payment of Wages Act which was allowed. Against this respondents filed Writ Petition before Hon'ble High Court, Allahabad, wherein order passed by the Labour Commissioner for paying three times compensation was reduced to the equal amount of wages. Although the wages and compensation as directed by the courts hereinabove have been paid to the applicant but services of the applicant was not regularized from the date of initial engagement. Applicant made several representation but no heed was paid to them, thus present O.A. was filed with the aforesaid relief.
4. Per contra, respondents have filed their Counter Affidavit refuting the ASHISH KUMAR facts disclosed in the OA and submitted that the cause of action in the 2 present case arose prior to 01.11.1982 hence this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try this case. It is also averred in the counter that in compliance of the order of Learned Munsif, West, Allahabad, the applicant was re-engaged as daily casual labour w.e.f. 11.06.1986 and temporary states was also given to him on 06.11.1986. The back wages of the applicant has also been paid to him. It is further states that if applicant had any grievance, he should have raised the same when he was re-engaged, hence the instant case is time barred and same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.
5. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the applicant controverting the facts disclosed in the Counter Affidavit mentioning therein that it is totally incorrect that the applicant was given temporary status on 06.11.1986. In fact the applicant was appointed as temporary Khalasi in regular pay w.e.f. 06.11.1986 in compliance of the order of Learned Munsif, West, Allahabad. It is also stated that applicant made a representation dated 07.05.2011 for his regularization of services but no action was taken, then present O.A. has been filed by him, thus applicant supports the facts mentioned in the OA.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant was appointed to the post of Khalasi, on daily wages on 01.01.1974 under Permanent Way Inspector, Northern Railway, Manauri. On 05.06.1976, the services of the applicant were terminated illegally and wrongfully. The applicant approached before the concerned authorities against the wrongful termination but when no action was taken, he along with 15 other similarly situated person filed Civil Suit No. 335/1976 in the Court of Munsif, West, Allahabad, challenging the illegal termination. Suit was contested by respondents and after hearing both the parties, the Court concerned decreed the suit vide order dated 22.12.1977 quashing the order of termination. It has also been observed in the judgment and order that respondents are restrained by way of permanent injunction from removing the applicant. Direction was also passed to give all consequential benefits reinstating the applicant immediately. Against the judgment and order passed by the Munsif, West, Allahabad in the aforesaid suit , a civil appeal no. 312/1978 was filed in the ASHISH KUMAR Court of District Judge, Allahabad, which was dismissed on 07.06.1985 3 affirming the judgment and order passed by the Munsif, West, Allahabad. On the basis of direction given in the aforesaid suit as well as in the appeal , applicant was taken back into the services w.e.f. 06.11.1986 but consequential benefits was not given to him. Thereafter applicant filed fresh suit no. PW 69/1985 before the Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, claiming the wages of the period of the termination. Prescribed Authority allowed the application vide judgment and order order dated 06.12.1990 and directed the Railway to pay Rs; 61600/- as wages as well as Rs. 184800/- as three times compensation to the applicant, within a period of one month from the date of the order. Respondents paid only Rs. 61600/- and balance amount was deposited before the labour court. Against the order of Prescribed Authority under Payment of Wages Act, railway administration filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 25303/1998 before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court which was disposed of on 09.12.2010 reducing the three times compensation to an amount of equal to the amount deducted from the wages. He further argued that since termination of the services of the applicant was set aside declaring illegal in the civil suit and same was also affirmed by the Learned District Judge in the Civil Appeal, therefore applicant ought to have been reinstated in the service w.e.f. 06.06.1976 itself. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the judgment and order passed by the Munsif, West, Allahabad and argued that O.A. be allowed and applicant's services be regularized w.e.f. 06.06.1976. It was also argued that Civil Court while decreeing the suit has specifically observed that applicant has obtained temporary status, thus on this basis itself applicant should have been reinstated from the date when he was terminated and the services of the applicant should have been regularized from that date itself. Referring to the copy of service record annexed with the O.A., it was also argued that respondents have re-engaged the applicant w.e.f. 06.11.1986 which is illegal. Thus prayer was made to allow the O.A. regularizing the services of the applicant w.e.f., the date of initial engagement and respondents be also directed to extend all the benefits including increment etc.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that on the basis of direction given in the judgment passed by the learned Munsif, West, ASHISH KUMAR Allahabad and by learned District Judge in Civil Appeal , the applicant was 4 re-engaged in the services w.e.f. 06.11.1986 and back wages have already been been paid to him, hence this issue is no longer Res integra. It was further argued that applicant was engaged on 06.06.1974 as casual labour and he was given temporary status on 06.11.1986 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 17.08.1989. Thus, for fixing the pension 50% period of temporary status has been taken into consideration to count the qualifying services, hence there is no illegality or perversity in the order. It was also argued that O.A. is time barred and wages for the period from 06.06.1974 and 05.11.1986 has already been received by the applicant, regularization of services of casual labour is subject to the availability of vacancy in Group 'D' cadre and on availability of the vacancy, he was regularised w.e.f. 17.08.1989 along with other co-worker. He further argued that this Tribunal has got no jurisdiction to try this case because the cause of action in the present case arose prior to 01.11.1982 and present O.A. has been filed belatedly. Relief claimed for regularisation from the year 1976 was not claimed when the cause of action arose in the matter. Applicant has been re-engaged on the basis of the direction given in the Civil Court Decree, thus relief claimed cannot be allowed. It is further argued that applicant is not entitled for any relief and prayer was made to dismiss the O.A.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and gone through the entire records.
10. What transpires from the record is that applicant was initially engaged as casual labour and his services were terminated on 05.06.1976. Thereafter applicant and other similarly situated workers filed Civil Suit No. 335/1976 before the Court of Learned Munsif, West, Allahabad, which was decreed on 21.12.1977, Operative part of the judgment passed by the Court of Munsif, West, Allahabad, runs as follows:-
"यह वाद वादीगण के हित में डिग्री किया जाता है । प्रतिवादीगण को स्थायी निषेधाज्ञा द्रारा मना किया जाता है कि न तो वे न ही उनके एजेंटस व सवें टस वादीगण को सेवा से मक् ु त करे । यह भी घोषित किया जाता है कि वादी प्रतिवादी के निरन्तर सेवा में खालासी के रूप में उस पद से निहित सभी लाभो के सहित जिसमें वेतन भत्तें भी सामिल है माने जायेगे। प्रतिवादीगण वादीगण को वाद व्यय दे ने के लिये उत्तदायी होगे।"
11. It further appears that judgment and decree passed in the Civil Suit ASHISH KUMAR was challenged in Civil Appeal but the same was dismissed by the District 5 Judge concerned. Thereafter respondents implemented the direction given in the judgment and decree and applicant was re-engaged w.e.f. 06.11.1986. Wages and compensation allowed by the learned Labour Commissioner as well as directed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the Writ Petition have been paid to the applicant and no issue exist as on date in this respect. Only dispute between the parties is regarding the regularization of the services of the applicant from the date of termination. Applicant's plea is that he has already obtained temporary status. Civil Court has decreed the suit presuming that applicant has obtained temporary status, thus respondents ought to have reinstated the applicant from the date of termination itself but respondents re-engaged the applicant w.e.f. 06.11.1986. Judgment and decree passed in Civil Suit is of dated 21.12.1977 and Civil Appeal was decided on 07.06.1985 and Suit no. PW 69/1985 was decided on 06.06.1990. Judgment and order passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the Writ Petition is of the year 2010, i.e. on 09.12.2010. If applicant's services were not regularised w.e.f. the date of termination, i.e., 06.06.1976, the applicant ought to have approached before the Civil Court through Execution proceedings. Applicant did not avail the said remedy. It may be mentioned that direction given in the aforesaid Civil Suit could be executed by way of Execution application under order 21 CPC. Although wages and compensation was paid to the applicant in compliance of the direction given in the PW 69/1985 passed by the prescribed authority under Payment of Wages Act, no such question regarding regularization of the services of the applicant from the date of initial engagement was raised by the applicant during that period. First time applicant has approached before this Tribunal through the O.A. in the year 2012. Certainly relief claimed in the present O.A. could only be given in the proceedings under order 21 CPC (Execution Proceedings). Since the applicant has not availed the said remedy, thus after a lapse of 26 years the relief claimed in the present O.A. cannot be allowed. Applicant cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same issue which has already been decided in the Civil Suit but the applicant has not taken recourse to the provision of order 21 (CPC) before the Civil Court. Applicant has been retired from service, his pension has been revised time to time. Whatever relief have been claimed in the matter could not be allowed in favour of the applicant in the year 2012, particularly ASHISH KUMAR when no delay condonation application has been filed whereas Civil Court 6 Decree is passed in the year 1977 and Civil Appeal judgment is of the year 1985, re-engagement order is of the year 1986. Thus, plea taken by the respondents are acceptable. O.A. lacks merit and is not liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. All associated M.A.s stand disposed of.
12. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) (Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (Administrative) Member (Judicial)
(Ashish)
ASHISH KUMAR
7