Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 873 (ORI)

UNION OF INDIA (UOI) v. M. RAMA RAO

2008-09-24

I.MAHANTY, L.MOHAPATRA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Indrajit Mahanty, J. - Tine South Eastern Railway authorities have sought to challenge the Judgment dated 26th December, 2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. Nos.1076-1085 of 2002, whereby, the Tribunal has pleased to direct the Petitioners to publish the panel of selected candidates (those who took the test at Rayagada) and to provide them employment/engagement in order to remove the discrimination to such of the selected candidates. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.5.1996 issued by the Petitioners was to recruit 737 casual labourers in Waltair Division of South Eastern Railway and applications were invited for the following regions: 1. Waltair (Track Spl.) - 67 2. Vizianagaram - 100 3. Srikakulam - 200 4. Rayagada - 100 5. Arukulam - 100 6. Koraput - 70 7. Jagadalpur - 30 8. Kirandul - 70 _______________________ Total - 737 It is also an admitted case between the parties that selection took place at various regions named above but surprisingly. and with no apparent justifiable reason, while the result of the candidates were declared for all other places and the selected candidates were given engagements, the candidates who had appeared at the test at Rayagada in the State of Orissa, their results were not declared and consequently, have been denied engagement. 3. The Tribunal has observed in its Judgment that the candidates who appeared the Test Centers other than Rayagada, were selected, empanelled and offered with orders of appointment as casual labourers upto 31.10.1996 and thereafter, their services were extended or were given re-appointment in the month of June, 1997 and were allowed to continue as such, in terms of the Rules of the Railways. They were also given "temporary status" as well as released payment at the scale of pay fixed for them apart from all other privileges and benefits applicable to temporary Railway employees. But it was emphatically submitted that even though under the same notification, persons appeared from different centers have got benefit of employment, but for no justifiable reason the result of the candidates those who appeared at Rayagada Centre (Orissa) were not declared. Thus, more than 100 casual labourers who were proposed to be engaged were not employed even though they were subjected to the same rigorous test as other candidates of other centers and thus, they have been denied appointment along with other selected candidates. 4. Thus, more than 100 casual labourers who were proposed to be engaged were not employed even though they were subjected to the same rigorous test as other candidates of other centers and thus, they have been denied appointment along with other selected candidates. 4. The Tribunal took note of the counter affidavit filed by the present Petitioners and in particular, the submissions made by them in paragraph-2 thereof wherein it has been stated that during the period from 9.7.1996 to 21.7.1996, the aforesaid officers conducted the test, but concerned papers along with the applications of the candidates attended, were taken by the Selection Officers to Waltair for further action. "But for some reason, the result of the said selection has not yet been published." (Emphasis supplied) 5. The Tribunal in the impugned order noted with anguish that public authorities, who have been made Respondents in this case (Petitioners herein) have not come out with any clear statement in their counter as to why the results of the candidates, who have faced the test at Rayagada have not been published and hence the Tribunal directed the General Manager, South Eastern Railways to conduct the enquiry and to fix the responsibility on the public officers for such lapses. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, the Tribunal directed that since there has been a clear violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by showing discriminatory treatment, the Respondents (Petitioners herein) were called upon to publish the panel of selected candidates of those who took their tests at Rayagada and to provide them engagement in order to remove the discrimination to such of the selected candidates. 6. Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Learned senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners-Railways submitted that the casual labourers engaged in other stations, were originally appointed as casual labourers upto 31.10.1996 and thereafter, they were given re-appointment in the month of June, 1997 and continue in the services of the Railway being granted with temporary status" and consequently were being paid with regular scales of pay attached thereto and all other privileges and benefits applicable to temporary railway employees. 7. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on the other strenuously urges that the Opposite Parties have been discriminated by the railways and, therefore, submitted that it is by enforcing the decision of the Tribunal that the Opposite Parties would get some relief. He submitted that although the 0pp. 7. Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties, on the other strenuously urges that the Opposite Parties have been discriminated by the railways and, therefore, submitted that it is by enforcing the decision of the Tribunal that the Opposite Parties would get some relief. He submitted that although the 0pp. Parties had appeared at the test pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.5.1996 i.e. more than 12 years back, for no apparent reason, their results have not been published, thereby denying them any chance of appointment. 8. Having perused the impugned order and considering the submissions advanced by the Learned Counsel for the parties, we are quite shocked by the manner In which the other candidates, who had appeared at Rayagada, have been dealt with by the Railway authorities. The Railways, in their counter affidavit before the Tribunal, gave a vague statement, i.e., "for some reasons the result has not yet been published". Now, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Railways sought to challenge the impugned order on the ground of delay. We are afraid that this only further highlights the casual manner in which Public Officers have dealt with the life and livelihood of the poorest of the poor and we have to record our deepest anguish at the manner in which the Railways have acted in the present case. Even after the counter affidavit was filed by the Railways and a challenge was made to the impugned order passed by the Tribunal before the Hon'ble Court, nothing whatsoever has been stated in any of the petitions or in any of the counter affidavits to even remotely try and justify the inaction of the Railways, in so far as, the selected candidates at Rayagada are concerned. The advertisement sought for engagement of causal labourers, who were only entitled to the minimum daily wages and after having appeared at the test in the year 1996, have already been denied employment for more than 12 years. Although only 10 Petitioners approached the Tribunat obviously, there are many more persons who have been affected but have not approached the Courts of law for redressal of their grievances. Poverty can never be a ground to deny them justice and it is obligatory for us to exercise our jurisdiction in such a manner so as to reach out to all affected persons. 9. Poverty can never be a ground to deny them justice and it is obligatory for us to exercise our jurisdiction in such a manner so as to reach out to all affected persons. 9. For the reasons stated herein above, the writ application is dismissed and the Railway Authorities are directed to comply with the directions of the Tribunal contained in the impugned order under Annexure- 5, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment. They are further directed to ensure the publication of the panel of selected candidates (from those who took the test at Rayagada) and to provide them employment/engagement with immediate effect. 10. Considering the fact that similarly placed candidates who had appeared at the same selection process, have already been given "temporary status", the period of service of the Opp. Parties shall be notionally computed from the date on which their counter parts have joined their duties. 11. We further make it clear that the 0pp. Parties shall not be entitled to claim salary and/or backwages but the said period shall be counted notionally for their service and retiral benefits in future and shall be granted "temporary status", and consequential benefits. L. Mohapatra, J. 12. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed