Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 171 (GAU)

Swapan Chanda v. Union of India

2011-03-01

A.K.GOSWAMI, I.A.ANSARI

body2011
JUDGMENT A.K. Goswami, J. 1. 55 number of Petitioners have approached this Court by way of an application under Article 226of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 4.9.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in Original Application No. 88 of 2009, dismissing the application filed by them at the admission stage. 2. We have heard Mr. B.D. Konwar, learned Counsel, for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, Railways appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, this case is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 3. The Petitioners contend that they were casual laborers who worked under Mechanical Department, N.F. Railways, at Lumding Division and the casual laborers are engaged and dis-engaged, depending upon the nature of the work. For absorption or re-engagement of ex-casual laborers, the Railway Board, in 1987-1988, had issued various Circulars, in terms of which, the Railway Authorities were required to maintain, what is called, live register and supplementary live register. The guidelines in the Circulars provided the names of those casual laborers, who had worked prior to 01.01.1981 and were re-engaged after 01.01.1981, were to be shown in the live casual registers and whereas in the case of supplementary live casual register, the names of those casual laborers would be included, who were discharged prior to 01.01.1981 due to completion of work and not engaged thereafter but had applied for such re-engagement by 31.03.1987. The Govt. of India, Ministry of Railways had issued a Circular dated 9.10.98 to all Zonal Railways laying down the norms to be followed in screening of casual laborers borne on the live/supplementary register. The Petitioners started making representations on and from 4.10.90, seeking their re-engagements in Mechanical Department. They further made representations on 27.2.95 when they discovered that a large number of ex-casual laborers were absorbed, although they were engaged much later than the Petitioners. Though some information and comments were called from the Respondent No. 3, by the Respondent No. 2, nothing tangible came out and the cases of the Petitioners were not considered though many casual laborers were absorbed in Group D Category. 4. Though some information and comments were called from the Respondent No. 3, by the Respondent No. 2, nothing tangible came out and the cases of the Petitioners were not considered though many casual laborers were absorbed in Group D Category. 4. The Petitioners had taken resort to the Court of law by filing O.A. No. 248 of 2006 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench with the following prayers: (a) A direction to the Respondents to include the names of the applicants to the live register/supplementary live register of ex-casual workers. (b) A direction to the Respondents to absorb the applicants in the same way as has been done with regard to the 194 similarly situated ex-casual workers (c) A direction to the Respondents to issue similar Order in favor of the applicants like that of Order No. EW/261 I Pt. II, dated 03.02.2005 issued by the Railways appointing 25 numbers of Khalasis. 5. The Tribunal by an order dated 23.10.2006 disposed of the O.A. No. 248 of 2006 directing the applicants therein to submit independent representation with relevant records available with them to the Respondent authorities and on receipt of such representation, the competent authority would consider and dispose of the same with a speaking order within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of the order. On 17.01.2007, on receipt of the representations, in compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2006, the Respondent authorities stated that the Petitioners had not applied within the stipulated time (31.03.1987) for inclusion of their names in the live register/supplementary live and as such, there was neither any scope to enlist their names nor to verify the genuineness of their claims at this distant point of time. This order was again put to challenge before the Tribunal in O.A. No. 84/2007 and confronted with the fact that they had not filed applications for absorption prior to 31.3.1987, the original application was sought to be withdrawn with a liberty to approach the Respondent authorities for a proper consideration on merits after condoning the delay and accordingly, the said O.A No. 84/07 was disposed of on 21.01.2008. The Petitioners made representations to the Respondent No. 2 on 17.04.2008 for consideration of their cases on merit and also to take into consideration the fact that many similarly situated persons were engaged in the post even though they did not apply within the cut off date. The representations being not attended to, O.A. No. 88/2009 so filed by the Petitioners, was dismissed on the grounds that the Petitioners have miserably failed to put up a prima-facie case. 5. In the Tribunal, the Respondents had taken two preliminary objections - firstly, with regard to the issue of res-judicata and secondly, with regard to maintainability of an application filed by 55 applicants. A perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal indicates that no findings have been recorded by the learned Tribunal on the aforesaid two issues. It is apparent that in the two previous rounds of litigation, cases of the Petitioners had not been heard and finally decided on merits and, therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised with regard to res-judicata. With regard to the other contention, we may note that the Petitioners had approached by filing O.A No. 248/2006 and there was a direction by the Tribunal dated 23.10.2006 directing them to submit independent representations before the authorities. In that view of the matter, we find that the Petitioners cannot be non-suited on the ground of non-maintainability of the joint petition. 6. The Tribunal because of non-furnishing of contemporaneous documents by the applicants to support their cases, took a view that when the applicants had amicably failed to put up a prima-facie case in their favor, the question of consideration of their prayers for condone the delay does not arise. 7. We find from the writ petitions that those statement has been made by the Petitioners that the Petitioners No 1 to 19 were engaged as casual laborers during the period of January,1979 to December,1979 under the Mechanical Department of the N.F. Railways at Lumding Division. It is also stated that the Petitioners No. 20 to 55 were engaged as casual laborers during the period 1988-1990 under the Mechanical Department, Lumding Division, N.F. Railways. On their own showing, they had not worked prior to 01.01.81 and, therefore, the Petitioners No. 20 to 55 cannot have the benefit of the circular in question which is applicable only to casual laborers who had worked prior to 01.01.81. 8. On their own showing, they had not worked prior to 01.01.81 and, therefore, the Petitioners No. 20 to 55 cannot have the benefit of the circular in question which is applicable only to casual laborers who had worked prior to 01.01.81. 8. However, as far as the Petitioners No. 1 to 19 are concerned, we are of the view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Respondent authorities, more particularly, Respondent No. 2, should consider and dispose of the representation dated 17.4.08 (Annexure P-16) of the writ petition. The Petitioners No. 1 to 19 also submit the period of engagement as casual laborers, which is stated to have been filed along with the representation dated 27.2.95 Annexure (P-1) and any other information that is available to them with regard to their being engaged as casual laborers. They may do so within a period of 1 month from today. The Respondent No. 2, then, shall consider the representations and dispose of the same within a period of 3 months, in the light of all attending facts and circumstances including whether their applications can be considered, though submitted beyond 31.3.97. So far as the other Petitioners are concerned, they may take such further steps as may be available to them in law. 9. With the above observations and discussions, this writ petitions stands disposed of.