Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1747 (PAT)

Union Of India v. Sahdeo

2007-11-07

MADHAVENDRA SARAN, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment Madhavendra Saran, J. 1. This writ application has been preferred for quashing the order dated 22.9.2003 passed by the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (in short as Tribunal) in O.A. No. 671/2002 whereby and whereunder the application filed by respondents 1 to 15 have been allowed with a direction that they are entitled to be considered for absorption, grant of temporary status and regularisation in preference to any direct recruit against the available posts. The learned Tribunal has directed the petitioners to consider their case for absorption, grant of temporary status and regularisation within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 21.5.2004 passed in R.A. No. 6/2004 by which the application for review of the above order dated 22.9.2003 has been rejected by the Tribunal. 2. The case of respondents no. 1 to 15 in O.A. No.671/2002 was that they were initially engaged as casual labours prior to 1981 and were working in Group "D" posts and later on they were discharged by the authorities for want of sanctioned work. They made various representations for their absorption, grant of temporary status and regularisation in Group "D" posts but nothing was done by the petitioners. In the meantime, as per direction of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Indrapal Yadavs case [(1985)(2) SLJ 58]. The Railway Board issued circular nos. 42/87 and 43/87 for empanelment and regularisation of casual labours in its letter dated 19.3.1987 vide Annexure-1 to the O.A. It is said that in pursuance of this letter wherein the cut-off date was prescribed as 31.3.1987 for making such representation for inclusion of name in the panel for the purpose of absorption were invited. Respondents 1 to 15 also submitted their representations within the cut-off date vide Annexure-A/2 series to the O.A. The respondents appeared in the screening test and cleared the same. The petitioners prepared a list of 419 casual labours who were declared successful after screening test and verification of documents. The said panel was prepared by a committee consisting four members of high ranks. The names of respondents 1 to 15 were also included in the said list for Jhajha Civil Engineering Department in Danapur Division where the respondents were working at the relevant time. The said panel was prepared by a committee consisting four members of high ranks. The names of respondents 1 to 15 were also included in the said list for Jhajha Civil Engineering Department in Danapur Division where the respondents were working at the relevant time. It is alleged that inspite of such panel no further action was taken for absorption of the casual labours so, the respondents 1 to 15 filed O.A. no. 97/1998 before the Tribunal seeking for direction for regularisation of their services and the same was decided by the Tribunal by order dated 24.12.2001 whereby direction was given to the petitioners to consider their case for absorption and regularisation in accordance with law. The Railway authorities in pursuance to the direction of the Tribunal passed an order dated 26.6.2002 as contained in Annexure A/12 whereby their claim for absorption and regularisation was rejected. Against the said rejection the respondents 1 to 15 filed O.A. No. 671/2002 before the Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 22.9.2003. 3. The petitioners appeared and filed written statement and opposed the prayer on the ground that there was no sanctioned work which compelled the petitioners to disengage the casual labours and the respondents 1 to 15 have failed to prove that their services were disengaged for want of work as the same was one of the requirements for absorption and regularisation of pre 1981 casual labours. The petitioners also refuted the claim of the respondents that any live register as contained in Annexures A/4 and A/5 to the O.A. was duly approved by the competent authority was prepared. They also took the stand that total number of working days against each of the casual labour whose name finds place amongst 419 candidates has not been incorporated in the list. 4. Learned Tribunal by its impugned order dated 22.9.2003 has held that a list of 419 persons which included the names of the respondents 1 to 15 has been prepared by a competent authority. It has further been held that in the written statement filed by the petitioners in O.A. No. 97/1998 they have admitted the claim of respondents. 4. Learned Tribunal by its impugned order dated 22.9.2003 has held that a list of 419 persons which included the names of the respondents 1 to 15 has been prepared by a competent authority. It has further been held that in the written statement filed by the petitioners in O.A. No. 97/1998 they have admitted the claim of respondents. It has further been held that petitioners have issued advertisement inviting applications for the filling up 2000 Group "D" posts which proves that vacancies are available and in accordance with the scheme unless all the casual labours included in casual labour register are absorbed and regularized new recruits cannot be taken. 5. It is the stand of respondents 1 to 15 that many casual labours had moved before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Indrapal Yadavs case (supra) for their regularisation and the Supreme Court has directed to absorb them and that no discrimination should be made against the casual labours who have not come before the court for observation. As per direction of the Supreme Court the Railway Board had issued circular nos. 42/87 and 43/87 for empanelment and regularisation of casual labours. 6. It is admitted position that respondents 1 to 15 were engaged as casual labours prior to 1981. In the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Indrapal Yadavs case the respondents were allowed to appear in the screening test on the basis of which a panel of 419 persons was prepared. It appears that since 1990 the respondents are out of job and their cases have not been considered for appointment against Group "D" posts. 7. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that respondents 1 to 15 could not show by any document that they were disengaged by the Railway for want of work. It was further argued that the list containing names of 419 casual labours including the respondents remained only a provisional list without bearing approval of any competent authority. Learned counsel pointed out that the list is supplementary only and has got no sanctity. He further pointed out that representation of only a few of the applicants were received within the target date and the letter issued to the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide annexure-7 does not reflect the correct position and the same was issued inadvertently. 8. Learned counsel pointed out that the list is supplementary only and has got no sanctity. He further pointed out that representation of only a few of the applicants were received within the target date and the letter issued to the Assistant Labour Commissioner vide annexure-7 does not reflect the correct position and the same was issued inadvertently. 8. Annexure-A/7 is a letter dated 25.1.94 from D.R.M., Danapur addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) containing remarks of D.R.M. In this letter it has been stated that as per existing instructions 419 casual labours whose live casual labour list have been prepared can be engaged only when need arises and that too with the prior approval of the General Manager, Eastern Railway. Their seniority is as per total number of working days as verified by the screening committee at the time of preparation of live casual labour register list. This letter further states that in the present circumstances it is not possible to indicate about the date categorically when the absorption of these casual labours can be started. No new faces from open market will be taken as casual labour before the absorption and these casual labours kept on live casual labour register. Now it is the stand of the petitioners that this letter has been issued inadvertently as it does not reflect the correct position. It appears from the impugned order dated 22.9.2003 that this stand of the Railway Administration was not taken in O.A. No. 97/2001. The Tribunal has observed that this stand has been taken purposely to reject the claim of the applicants for their absorption and regularisation. Annexure R/1 to I.A. No. 2702/ 2005 filed on behalf of the petitioners in the present writ application indicates the situation. It is a letter dated 18.11.1993 issued by D.R.M., Danapur to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in respect of regularisation of S/Sri Shiv Kumar and others. In paragraph 3 of this letter it has been mentioned as follows: "It is admitted that action as per instructions circulated vide CPO/Calcuttas Serial Nos. 42/87 and 43/87 has been taken and completed. It is a letter dated 18.11.1993 issued by D.R.M., Danapur to Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) in respect of regularisation of S/Sri Shiv Kumar and others. In paragraph 3 of this letter it has been mentioned as follows: "It is admitted that action as per instructions circulated vide CPO/Calcuttas Serial Nos. 42/87 and 43/87 has been taken and completed. Genuineness of the applicants who had submitted their applications in response to Railway Boards letters No. E(NG)II 84CL/41 dated 2.3.1997 and No. E/NG/II-78/CL/ dated 4.3.1987, circulated under CPO/ E.RLY/Calcutta is Serial No. 42/87 and 43/87 within the stipulated date i.e. 31.3.1987 has been verified by the Committee nominated for the same and a list of 419 Ex-casual labours has been prepared." 9. The argument of learned counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that Annexure-2 series which are the applications of respondents 1 to 15 clearly show that in column 10 therein the reasons for discharge has been shown as "non- availability of sanction work". Then the list prepared by the Railway Administration shows that the same was verified from the paid vouchers and verification of L.T.I. and the said list was signed by four officers. Then it appears from Annexure- A/6 to the O.A. that the D.R.M., Danapur has admitted in his letter dated 18.11.1993 that as per instructions circulated vide CPO/Calcutta Serial Nos. 42/87 and 43/87 action has been taken and completed. It indicates that the applications were submitted within the cut-off date, that is, 31.3.1987. In the above circumstances, it cannot be accepted that the list has not been prepared after due verification of factual position with regard to number of days of performance of duty by the concerned labours. 10. It appears that Railway administration prepared the list of casual labours with the assurance that they would be absorbed in future vacancies. Now the Railway Administration cannot go back and say that the list so prepared by them is an eye wash and cannot be acted upon. This scheme has been framed by the Railway Ministry and all the General Managers were directed to implement the scheme by the target date. In such view of the matter, the scheme must be implemented and the Railway Administration must start absorbing the casual labours with the longest service tenure. 11. For the reasons aformentioned, this court finds no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. In such view of the matter, the scheme must be implemented and the Railway Administration must start absorbing the casual labours with the longest service tenure. 11. For the reasons aformentioned, this court finds no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Narayan Roy, J. I agree.