Original Application No. 208 of 2006. Case: 1. Hiramani S/o Late Dubari, 2. Ram Sajivan C/o Budhhu, 3. Ahmad S/o Khalil, 4. Lolaraknath S/o Indramani Vs 1. Union of India, Through General Manager, North Eastern Railway, Gorakhpur, 2. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi, 3. Ravi P. Chaturvedi, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, North Eastern Railway, Varanasi, 4. M. K. Pandey, Station Master, Chauri Chaura, (Ex. Chief vigilance Inspector, N. E. Rly., Gorakhpur.), 5. Ram Kamal, Inquiry Officer (Head Quarter) (Vigilance)/N. E. Rly, Gorakhpur. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No. 208 of 2006 |
| Judges | Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member) & D. C. Lakha (Accountant Member) |
| Issue | Service Law |
| Judgement Date | May 20, 2011 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Judgment:
Dr. K. B. S. Rajan (Judicial Member)
-
In this O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following relief
(i) To direct the respondents to absorb the applicants against regular group 'D' posts in any department within the Division against the vacancies advertised in News paper as notified as per notification dt. 21.12.05 (Annexure A-Va) and regularize their services with all benefits relaxing the condition of age limit under the provisions of the extent Rules.
(ii) The Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to declare the Railway Board's circular dated 28.2.2001(Annexure A-1/B) and 20.9.2001 (Annexure A-1/C) and notification dated 21.12.2005 ((Annexure A-1/A) partially ultra-vires and invalid to the extent these circulars are repugnant to statutory provisions of para 2006 (iii) of IREM Vol. II (1990) with regard to upper age limit for regularization of ex-casual labour borne on live casual labour registers.'
(iii) Any other writ or order or direction which the Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the interest of justice.
-
Brief History of the case:
(a) The four applicants were earlier engaged in 1984-85 as seasonal Casual Waterman in commercial Department in Allahabad Division and are stated to have continued till 1991. The period of engagement during hot weather seasons is as hereunder:-
(a) Hiramani: 645 days
(b) Ram Sajivan 627 days
(c) Ahmad 672 days
(d) Lolaraknath 612 days
-
Earlier, the applicants (except Applicant No. 4) had filed an OA No. 770 of 1992 which was decided on 06-04-2000 directing the respondents to consider the applicants for absorption against Group D vacancies on their turn. According to the applicants, when their turn came, their candidature was sought to be rejected due to over age. According to the applicants, the question of age limit does not arise due to the following:-
(a) the entire scheme of absorption came up in the wake of the decision by the Apex Court in the case of Inder Pal Yadav vs Union of India (1985) SCC (L & S) 526) which does not put any restriction. This has been so observed in the judgment of the High Court of Kerala in W.P. No. 21777 of 2007 (S) wherein the High Court has observed as under:-
-
We have given anxious consideration to the contentions of both sides. Going by Inder Pal Yadav's case (cited supra), those who acquire 360 days service are entitled to be absorbed into the regular establishment. It is common case that before 2001, without any reference to the age limit and in many cases, without insisting for the completion of 360 days service, the persons included in the live register of casual labourers were absorbed into Group D post. After the judgement of the Apex court in Inder Pal Yadav (cited supra), there was considerable delay in considering the claim of the party respondents before us, who were the applicants before the Central Administrative tribunal. The party respondents would accuse the railways for the delay, as a result of which they became over-aged. The Railways would submit that there were not sufficient number of vacancies and as and when vacancies rose, the exercise of absorption was being undertaken.
-
We notice that the applicants belong to a vanishing category and a liberal view was taken by the Tribunal in their case. The said...
To continue reading
Request your trial