Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. Learned counsels for the respondents go on to submit that the main ground on which the case of the applicants was rejected was them being overage. This fact was cogently highlighted in Railway Board's Circular vide RBE No. 42 of 2001 dated 28.02.2001. The case of the applicants was meticulously considered and examined in light of the rules framed in the said letter dated 28.02.2001. It is pertinent to be noted that the question of removal of minimum three years' service conditions (continuous or broken) for the purpose of grant of age relaxation to ex-casual labour as mentioned in the above letter was taken up for examination. And after due ponderance, it was decided that the ex-causal labour who had put in minimum 120 days casual service, whether continuous or in broken spells, and were initially engaged as casual labour within the prescribed age limit of 28 years for general candidates and 33 years for SC / ST candidates, would be given age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 40 years in the case of general candidates, 43 years in the case of OBC candidates and 45 years in the case of SC / ST candidates. Other provisions for their absorption in Group 'D' will remain unaltered. And ultimately, ex- casual labours who become eligible in light of above set rules shall be subjected to regularization in future. The case of the applicants was considered by the respondents in light of the above stated rules and they were found unsuitable thereafter. And thus, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the procedure that was followed in this regard by the respondents. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 10457 of 2000 decided on 05.08.2005.

18. Learned counsels for the respondents also submit that as claimed by the applicants, paragraph III (b) of Para 2006 of the Indian Railway Establishment Vol. II edition 1989 is not applicable in the present case of the applicants. It is applicable in case of casual labours who are enrolled and working at the time of screening. The applicants were neither enrolled nor working at the time of screening. And all casual labours who were enrolled and working had been regularized up to 31.12.1997. Furthermore, para 2006(i) of the IREM clearly stipulates that absorption of casual labours in Group 'D' employment may be considered in accordance with instructions issued by Railway Board from time to time. And thus, applicants herein cannot allege that their case was rejected without following the relevant statutory rules. The applicants' case was rejected as they were overage at the time of screening.

23. Shri S K Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants in OA No. 232 of 2008 and OA No. 368 of 2019 argues that all the applicants are ex-casual labours who have worked more than 120 days in their respective departments and thus have attained temporary status. They even find their names in the Live Casual Register and as such they are entitled for reengagement and regularization in accordance with the law laid down in the Apex Court judgment Indra Pal Yadav (supra). Furthermore, respondents issued notification for engaging fresh casual labours from open market and ignored the applicants thereby completely contradicting the law laid down in the Apex Court's judgment that existing manpower has to be employed before recruiting fresh hands. When the applicants were called for screening, they were simply denied re-engagement on the ground of being overage. Further, learned counsel for the applicants further argues that some of the persons who are junior to the applicants have been regularized while the applicants were still awaiting their turn. Specifically in case of OA No. 368 of 2019, learned counsel submits that when the applicants were rejected in screening, they approached this Tribunal vide OA No. 927 of 2010 which was disposed of on 08.07.2010 by the Tribunal directing the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order deciding the case of the applicants. However, respondents passed an unreasoned impugned order dated 16.03.2010 rejecting the case of the applicants. However, the Tribunal has allowed another case of similarly situated applicants i.e., OA No. 127 of 1997 wherein a direction was given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicants therein. Against the directions given in that case, respondents approached Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad through W P No. 14939 of 2011 titled UOI Vs Ambika Singh wherein the respondents failed to get any relief. Subsequently, complying with the Tribunal's order, respondents gave appointment to Shri Amibka Singh. Having been placed on the same footing, applicants also approached respondents with their representations to accord them similar benefits as have been accorded to Shri Ambika Singh. However, their prayer was not accepted. Thus, the applicants have approached this Tribunal. As regards to the limitation period, the applicants' counsel is placing reliance on the judgment passed in OA No. 1696 of 1992 titled Hukum Singh Vs Union of India by the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal wherein it was held that for recurring cause of action, rule of limitation will not apply. Applicants are also placing reliance on the judgment dated 04.05.2022 passed in OA No. 75 of 2013 by Patna Bench of Central Administrative tribunal wherein relief has been granted to the similarly placed persons.

27. Shri Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents in OA No. 368 of 2019 further submits that in compliance of the directions given by the Apex Court in the case of Indrapal Yadav Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1985 (2) SCC 648 which was decided on 18.04.1985, a seniority list of all project casual labours was prepared for their engagement / reengagement and casual live register was also prepared in this regard. As per the need of casual labours in new project, they were reengaged from the aforesaid casual live register up to the year 1992. A few of the casual labours who were already managing the work of new projects were enrolled and there was no additional requirement of casual labours to carry out the project works. All the casual labours who were on rolled were regularized later. In order to update the live register which was prepared earlier, a notification was issued advising all the ex-casual labours whose names were mentioned in the said register to present themselves before the department on specified dates for their screening. That for the year 2007-08, budget outlay was increased and hence stood demand of workforce due to which 500 work charged post for engagement of track man were created only for the financial year 2007-08. All the ex-casual labours along with the applicants whose names were there in the above said live register were called for screening. The screening result was declared and the applicants were informed that they have been found unsuitable. Learned counsel for the respondents goes on to submit that the main ground on which the case of the applicants was rejected was them being overage. This fact was cogently highlighted in Railway Board's Circular vide RBE No. 42 of 2001 dated 28.02.2001. The case of the applicants was meticulously considered and examined in light of the rules framed in the said letter dated 28.02.2001. It is pertinent to be noted that the question of removal of minimum three years' service conditions (continuous or broken) for the purpose of grant of age relaxation to ex-casual labour as mentioned in the above letter was taken up for examination. And after due ponderance, it was decided that the ex- causal labour who had put in minimum 120 days casual service, whether continuous or in broken spells, and were initially engaged as casual labour within the prescribed age limit of 28 years for general candidates and 33 years for SC / ST candidates, would be given age relaxation upto the upper age limit of 40 years in the case of general candidates, 43 years in the case of OBC candidates and 45 years in the case of SC / ST candidates. Other provisions for their absorption in Group 'D' will remain unaltered. And ultimately, ex-casual labours who become eligible in light of above set rules shall be subjected to regularization in future. The case of the applicants was considered by the respondents in light of the above stated rules and they were found unsuitable thereafter. And thus, no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the procedure that was followed in this regard by the respondents. To substantiate this argument, learned counsels rely on judgments passed by Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in CMWP No. 10457 of 2000 decided on 05.08.2005.