Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute; therefore, the brief note thereon is sufficient. The applicants were engaged as Hot Whether Staff, on the post of Casual Waterman during the summer season during the year 1981-92 under the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad. As per Railway Boards order dated 25.01.1985 the services of the applicants were regularized as temporary on the post of Waterman and they were allowed regular pay scale of the post of Waterman and they also become entitled for all the benefits admissible to a Temporary Railway Servant as laid down in Chapter XXIII of the I.R.E.M. The Respondents department issued a notification on 29.06.1988 notifying 548 vacancies of regular Group  D staff in Traffic & Commercial Branch in Allahabad Division (Annexure-A-2). As per above notification those Substitute/Casual/Hot Whether Staff who were appointed after 01.08.1978 and have completed four months service as on 01.05.1988 were to be screened. Concerned Officers of the Traffic & Commercial Branch were directed to send list of eligible staff upto 15.07.1988. The applicants who are eligible in terms of the advertisement are liable to be screened. The names of all the applicants were sent by the Traffic & Commercial Branch to the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad for inclusion in the seniority list of the staff for screening from August, 1989 to October, 1989. The respondents conducted the screening as per seniority list dated 23.12.1988 (Annexure-A-3) circulated by Divisional Railway Manager. The applicants, who were working in the same Branch and having all the eligibility conditions as per notification, were not called for screening. The result of the screening was declared on 03.02.1990 whereby 394 candidates were declared successful (Annexure-A-4). It is alleged that several persons junior to the applicants were empanelled and regularized against the 548 vacancies of regular Group D. Against the above action of the respondents applicants made representation on 20.03.1991 (Annexure-A-6). When no decision was taken on the above mentioned representation then the applicants approached to this Tribunal by way of Original Application No.964 of 1992. This Tribunal vide its order dated 03.11.1995 disposed of the Original Application with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants for regularization in their turn. Incase, any junior has been so regularized, the applicants be considered for regularization from the date of regularization of such juniors (Annexure-A-7). It was also provided in the order that in the meanwhile they shall be considered for reengagement as Casual Waterman in preference to their juniors). The applicants represented on 11.12.1995 to the respondents apprising about the order passed by this Tribunal dated 03.11.1995 which was supplemented by reminders. It is averred in paragraph No.4.16 of the Original Application that sufficient number of permanent posts in Group  D category in Traffic & Commercial Branch were filled up by appointment from other department by transfer. The scheme for engagement of Hot Whether Staff/Seasonal Waterman was discontinued by order dated 16.03.1992. A letter was issued on 01.01.1996 by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad for filling up vacant posts in the Transport Division of the Respondents Department. A letter was also issued by the General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi on 28.05.1996 directing the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad to fill up remaining 148 vacant posts from Casual Labour, who were not empanelled earlier, may now be screened against the existing vacancies in the Traffic & Commercial Department (Annexure-A-10). When the claim of the applicants was not considered in terms of the direction of this Tribunal dated 03.11.1995 then the applicants filed Civil Misc. Contempt Petition No.94 of 1996 in O.A. No. 964 of 1992. The respondents filed reply to the Contempt Petition annexing letter dated 11.08.1998 stating therein that no person junior to the applicants have been engaged or screened or regularized in Group  D. On the basis of above this Tribunal disposed of the Contempt Petition by order dated 25.11.1999 with observations that, if the applicants are aggrieved by the said order then they can agitate the said matter by filing the Original Application. Being aggrieved the applicants filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.3258 of 2000 before the Honble High Court which was later on withdrawn on 01.08.2002. Despite the above litigation the names of the applicants are still existing in the Casual Live Register and they are awaiting for their reengagement in terms of order of this Tribunal dated 03.11.1995. The Railway Board issued order on 25.04.1996 and subsequently on 09.10.1998 whereby decided to absorb all Casual Labour on the role under the special drive during the period from 01.05.1996 to 31.03.1998 whose names were borne on Live Register and after exhausting them the persons who are on Supplementary Live Register their cases will be considered (Annexure-A-13 & A-14). Accordingly notification was issued on 17.12.2005 (Annexure-A-1) published in the Amar Ujala, Newspaper notifying 5,000 vacancies, circulated by Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Allahabad vide order dated 21.12.2005 notifying application from Ex-casual labours. As per condition stipulated in the advertisement (Annexure-A-1) all the applicants are not eligible in terms of age as they have become overage. Hence the O.A.

3. Both the Federations have been requesting for relaxation of the minimum educational qualification and age in the case of ex-casual labour borns on the Live/Supplementary Live Casual labour Registers, while considering them for absorption against Group D vacancies.
4. After considering the views of both the recognized Federations, the Board have now decided that, for filling up 60% of the open market recruitment vacancies for each recruitment in the category of Gangman, scale Rs.2610-3500, in the Civil Engineering Department, the minimum educational qualification of Class VIII passed need not be insisted upon while considering the ex-casual labour borne on live/supplementary live casual labour registers. The remaining 40% of open market recruitment vacancies in the category of gangmen in Civil Engineering Department will be filled in through direct recruitment from open market, in which ex-casual labour, who are lower in the seniority position (based on the total number of days of casual service put in) in the live/supplementary live registers, but possess minimum qualification of Class VIII pass can also apply. For all the other departments, only those ex-casual labours borne on live/supplementary live casual labour registers, who fulfill the minimum educational qualification of Class VIII pass would be considered for direct appointment against Group D: vacancies.

13. Even in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bari & Ors. Vs. Union of India & anr. In O.A. No.1568 of 2009 decided on 20.05.2011 this Tribunal directed the respondents to absorb the Ex-casual labours borne on Live Casual Labour Register in terms of the judgment delivered in the case of Inder Pal Yadav (Supra) relevant part reads as under:-

10. Admittedly, there was a policy and scheme of the Railway. It was framed in pursuance of the direction of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Indra Pal Yadav and subsequently reiterated in different other judgments. Under these circumstances in my opinion the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi is not applicable to ex-casual labour borne on casual live register, because for regularization/absorption of these casual labours there is a policy of the Railway Board and that applicants also submitted applications fulfilling requisite qualification on the date of submission of application form in pursuance of the notification issued by Respondent No.2. Only result is to be declared of the screening test and when the applicants were permitted to participate in the screening test hence presumption can be drawn that these applicants were fulfilling all the requisite qualification and entitled to be participated in the screening test, then result must be declared of the screening test, and the respondents cannot be permitted to reject the application of the applicants for absorption/regularization submitted in pursuance of the notification issued by Respondent No.2 and the respondents No.2 also alleged that the applications are being invited in pursuance of the Railway Boards policy.

16. Recently, Honble High Court of Allahabad in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal, At Allahabad and another in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.1758 of 2010 decided on 10.08.2011 reported in 2012 (1) ADJ 107 have considered the same controversy and held as under:-

4. From perusal of record , it is clear that as per the circular of Railway Board dated 11.5.1999, different divisions of the Indian Railways were required to maintain Live Register/Supplementary Live Register of all casual labours as on 1.4.1999. Different divisions may have taken up the matter for regularization of the casual labourers at different points of time. In case if the cut of date for the purpose of regularizations taken as the date when the application is considered for regularization by the respective divisions and not 1.4.1999 as directed the Railway Board, there would be confusion and anomaly in the process of regularization. This we say so because different divisions were taking up the matter for regularization on different dates, in which case where the process of regularization was initiated early, many such casual labourers as the respondent No.2 would have been considered for regularization and in other divisions where the process in initiated after a few years, candidates such as the respondent No.2 would be at a disadvantage. There has to be uniformity in the process of regularization and when the Railway Board itself has directed for Live Register to be maintained as on 1.4.1999, the eligibility criteria as on such date ought to have been taken in to account as the cut of date for such purpose. As such, we do not find any discrepancy in the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to cut off date for the purpose of considering the age limit for regularization of a candidate.