Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

* The petitioners have challenged the order dated 8th July, 2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 1358/2008 titled as Sh. Ram Avtar & ors. Vs. Union of India through Ministry of Railways & ors. dismissing their Original Application challenging the circular dated 1st April, 2008 and seeking direction to the respondent to consider the applicants first for appointment to the regular posts whose names appeared in the live casual labour register before considering the regularization of other categories of employees. The plea of the petitioners was that they had been working as casual labour in C&W Safaiwala and had completed 120 days in Northern Railways.

The petitioners had challenged dispensing of their services by filing an Original Application being OA 240/2003 which was dismissed by order dated 17th March, 2003. The Tribunal had held that the petitioner could not claim any benefit from the order of the Supreme Court. The order dated 17th March, 2003 in OA 240/2003 was not challenged by the petitioners and had become final.

The respondents thereafter, issued a circular dated 1st April, 2008 deciding to absorb licensed porters as a gangman but those casual labours whose name had been entered in live casual register were not to be absorbed under the said circular which was challenged by the petitioners by filing OA 1358/2008 before the Tribunal. While dismissing the petition, the Tribunal noted that circular dated 1st April, 2008 was issued pursuant to announcement made by the Railway Minister as a one time measure to appoint licensed porters as a gangman.

The respondents are entitled to have different schemes for different categories of workers and the Circular dated 1st April, 2008 is made categorically for the licensed porters as a one time scheme to appoint them as a gangman. Such a policy decision of the respondents as one time measure for licensed porters cannot be extended to the petitioners who had been in live casual labour register and whose services had been dispensed with nor the action of the respondents to have one time measure/scheme for licensed porters can be faulted.