Lakshman vs North Eastern Railway on 1 January, 2026
7. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed rejoinder
affidavit along with parawise reply on 19.11.2024, wherein it
has been asserted that all objections raised in the counter
reply had already been rejected by this Tribunal in earlier
matters such as O.A. No.127/1997 (Ambika Singh and others
vs. Union of India), and despite juniors with fewer working
days and even over-aged being regularized, the present
applicants were arbitrarily excluded. It was submitted that
the respondents have concealed crucial documents such as
the original Live Casual Register, supplementary register,
SHAKUNTALA VERMA
7
seniority position of the applicants, retrenchment notices,
and records of juniors who were regularized, thereby
defeating the genuine claim of the applicants. The rejoinder
emphasized that once the applicants' names were borne on
the Live Casual Register, they acquired a vested right to be
considered for re-engagement before any fresh recruitment,
and the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage
of their own lapses. It was further argued that the applicants
never refused re-engagement, no valid discharge orders
were ever served, and several juniors including Ambika
Singh were regularized long back, hence the applicants are
entitled to regularization w.e.f. the date of their juniors with
all consequential benefits, or in the alternative,
compensation for the illegalities committed by the
respondents.