AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri Jaswant Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Pramod Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“i)The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicants age relaxation and they may be appointed in the department as has been done by themselves with reference to the other similarly situated person in compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court.
ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the respondents to allow the applicants seniority and all consequential benefit to service w.e.f. 01.04.1999 when the applicants were declared eligible for appointment.
iii) issue any order, direction or further orders which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of this case.
iv) Award cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case are that the applicants were ex-casual laborers who were borne in the employment sometimes between 1978-81 and 1985 onwards under the control of the respondent constructions and other organizations. They were called for a screening test on different dates in 2008. Thereafter, on 25.03.2010, they all were declared unsuitable being overaged. Aggrieved, on Shri Indra Pal Yadav had filed a petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court bearing No.147/1983 which was allowed and in compliance several re-engagement of ex-project casual laborers was made and they were granted temporary status. Noticing this, the applicants also approached the respondents with the grievance that instead of appointing them, fresh appointments as well as appointments of those juniors to the applicants in the labour register were being made. The applicants are aggrieved that ignoring them, a large number of casual labourers have been later on granted age relaxation vide orders dated 11.09.2018, Central Administrative Tribunal22.11.2018 and 07.12.2018 and appointed in the department.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants were working under the respondents’ department for different spans of time and they were also asked to appear for the screening test. To substantiate this argument, learned counsel for the applicant referred to the call letter for the screening test annexed with the O.A. and further argued that the applicants appeared for screening test and final result was declared in the year 2010 declaring the applicants as unsuitable. It is also argued that a specific reason for declaring the applicants as unsuitable has not been mentioned in the result. Learned counsel for the applicant further referred to the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ-A.No.-11282/2018 Ramesh Chandra Bari and 13 others vs. Union of India and others decided on 31.01.2025 as well as the Judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition (C) No.22533/2025 Ram Abhilash Singh and others vs. Union of India and others decided on 21.01.2026 and further argued that in similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Court has allowed a compensation to the tune of Rs.8 Lakhs to each of the applicants. It is also argued that a similar issue has been decided by this Tribunal in O.A./158/2023 decided on 23.04.2026 Prem Singh and ors. Vs. Union of India and ors. extending the same benefit to the applicants. Thus, argued that the applicants were in the live casual register and had appeared in the screening test but they were declared unsuitable on the basis of their age. Thus, prayer was made to allow the O.A. extending the same relief as have been allowed in the aforesaid judgements.
Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the counter affidavit and argued that the applicants’ cases are entirely different. They have not challenged the order passed in the screening test. Since different stand has been taken by the Railway Department in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bari, therefore, Hon’ble High Court in the Writ Petition pending against the order passed in the O.A. in Ramesh Chandra Bari case had allowed it and initially granted a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only to each of them. The order passed by the Hon’ble High court in Ramesh Chandra Bari (supra) case was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid SLP and Hon’ble Supreme Court enhanced the compensation to the tune of Rs.8 lakhs. The applicants’ cases are slightly different. They have become overaged, therefore, they cannot be allowed similar benefits. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the judgement and order passed by this Bench in the bunch case with leading case as O.A./31/2019 Jagdish and others vs Union of India and others decided on 09.05.2023 and further argued that in the identical situation, prayer for regularization has been rejected by this Tribunal. Thus, argued to dismiss the O.A.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents record.
The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the aforesaid writ petition No. 11282 of 2018 is as follows:
“28.Applying the principles of law as culled out in the above noted decisions in the facts of the case, an irresistible, conclusion stands drawn that it is not open for the respondent-railways to question the suitability of the writ petitioners on the grounds which had already been adjudicated. Might be, there appears to be certain relevant grounds regarding the objection to the suitability of a candidate which in the facts and circumstances of the case may occur due to various factors, however, in the present case we find that the same old objections are being raised questioning the eligibility of the writ petitioners who had already been adjudicated and laid to rest on a challenge to the higher forum.
29.As regards the judgment of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra) is concerned, there is no quarrel to the proposition that an excasual employee/labour has no legal indefeasible right to be accorded temporary status or to be made regular and the same is subject to compliance of the rules so framed therein and also fulfillment of legal requirement as the employer may by rule provide. However, in the present case there lies a slight distinction that in the case in hand, the eligibility of the writ petitioners for screening had been adjudicated by a Court of law holding them to be eligible while negating the objections so raised by the respondent-railways and the only direction was to declare the result of the screening, in case, the writ petitioners are to be successful, but, the respondents have not taken any new objection regarding entitlement other than what was already decided. In Ashok Kumar (supra), the Division Bench was confronted with the situation wherein the casual labours had not put in 120 days of working and further the Division Bench had proceeded to hold that merely on asking an ex-casual labour status cannot be transformed to regular employee of the Railways.
30.Apparently, in the present case there happens to be a positive finding in favour of the writ petitioners holding them to be eligible and the only task which was entrusted to the respondent-railways by virtue of the order of the Tribunal in the earlier spell of litigation was to declare their result, in case, they were successful, but by no stretch of imagination it can be said to have granted any leverage to the respondent-railways to reopen the issues which had already been decided.
31.Now a question arises as to what relief is to be accorded to the writ petitioners. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent railways sworn by Divisional Personnel Officer, North Central Railway, Prayagraj Division dated 31.03.2023 in which a chart has been recapitulated showing the age at the time of consideration with relation to the screening as on 01.01.2006. ……..
32.So far as Ramesh Chandra Bari the original applicant, he has expired and as regards the rest of the writ petitioners they as on date are beyond the prescribed age for being accorded temporary/regular status. Since the writ petitioners are out of employment for a long time, for several decades, thus, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue direction for according regular status to them. The Court is also mindful of the fact that the writ petitioners had been agitating their claims before the judicial forums and they possess positive order declaring them to be eligible coupled with an order for declaration of results and bearing in mind the fact that the objections raised by the respondent-railways regarding the entitlement of the writ petitioners are the same which stood adjudicated by the Court of law and there is no new and valid objections available on record so as to deny benefits to the writ petitioners, thus, keeping in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case it would be appropriate to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
33.Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The judgment and order dated 16.02.2018 passed in OA No. 330/00370 of 2015 is set aside. The relief for issuance of the appointment order to the writ petitioners against the regular vacancies in pursuance of the notification dated 17.12.2005 and the screening test held in the year 2007 is declined. A mandamus is issued to the respondentRailway to pay compensation to each of the writ petitioners/their legal heirs to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.”
8.Central Administrative Tribunal Judgment and order passed in the writ petition was challenged by the casual laborers themselves before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Special Leave Petition (C) No 22533 of 2025 and it was decided to enhance the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. The applicants herein have also participated in the screening test conducted in the year 2008. In the result published in the year 2010, they were declared unsuitable which is attributed to their over age. Similarly situated casual labours who had challenged the screening result filed writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court which was decided as disclosed hereinabove only granting a compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs but prayer for the appointment was refused on the ground that all the petitioners have crossed the age of superannuation. If the age of the applicants shown in the OA is taken into consideration, certainly all the applicants have crossed the age of superannuation as on date. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that present applicants’ prayer can also be allowed in terms of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the writ petition No. 11282 of 2018 and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No 22533 of 2025. Applicants’ prayer on the strength of judgement passed by this Bench in bunch of O.A.s with leading O.A. No.31/2019 (Jagdish & others) cannot be rejected as applicants are entitled to get relief in light of Ramesh Chandra Bari & others (supra) case.
Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions and analysis, the instant original application is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid referred judgments and the competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lacs only) each to the applicants. The amount shall be remitted directly into the applicants’ accounts within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The bank particulars of the applicants shall be supplied by the learned counsel for the applicants to the respondents within ten days from the date of this order. If the amount is not deposited within the said period, it shall attract interest at the rate of 6% simple interest per annum until the realization of the amount.
All associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.