Bhagwan Singh vs Union Of India & Ors

Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member J

Shri Rakesh Kumar Dixit, counsel for the applicant and Shri Atul Kumar Shahi, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.

This O.A. has been filed by the applicant for appointment as a casual labour under Class IV category on the ground of similarly situated persons who were engaged in pursuance to the Railway Board’s direction. Following relief(s) has sought through this O.A.: -

“(I) To direct the respondents as per the Railway Board Letter 22.10.1980 to checked record of the applicant and at the opportunity of next recruitment for a casual labour work and preference be given over his juniors

(II) To engage the applicant on class IV category as similarly situated persons were engaged in pursuance of order dated 30.8.2001.

(III) To pass any order which this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit under the circumstances of the case.

(IV) To award cost in favour of the applicant.”

The facts of case, as per pleadings in the O.A. are that the applicant having date of birth as 12.05.1965, was initially engaged in casual labour capacity vide order dated 08.04.1986 to the post of Waterman. A casual labour card No. 261627 was issued and he has worked till 1989 regularly and thereafter in the year 1991 for 70 days. He was also granted the status of Monthly Rated Casual Labour (MRCL) vide office order dated 22.04.1990 along with some other casual labourers. That applicant submitted that the Railway Board as a policy decision dated 22.10.1980 directed all the Zonal Railways to prepare a list of casual labourers and whenever the opportunity for next recruitment opens, the casual labourers, who have earlier worked, should be considered for appointment. After getting the knowledge of the same, the applicant has moved a representation/appeal dated 14.09.2008 before the competent authority for his recruitment on the ground of temporary status granted to the applicant on 10.10.1989 and having holding the casual labour card, which establish number of working days with the respondents’ department. After no reply was received from the respondents’ department, the applicant has sought the information under Right to Information Act on 24.09.2008 for consideration of employment which has not been properly replied by the respondents in their reply dated 02.10.2008. Counsel for the applicant submitted that as per Railway Board policy, the casual labourers whose names are being kept in the Casual Labour Live Register are to be regularized on the basis of strength of their working, in descending order and name of the applicant was not called for whenever recruitment exercise for engagement of fresh faces/casual labourers were initiated by the respondents’ department while some other persons, similarly situated to the applicant, were engaged on regular basis. Counsel for the applicant has drawn attention to the letter dated 22.04.1990 (Sub.: Grant of temporary status), wherein applicant placed at serial No. 13 was granted MRCL status. Therefore, he has submitted that once the temporary status has been granted to the applicant, he is liable to be regularized and after no action taken place by the respondents, he has filed this O.A., initially with delay condonation application which was decided and the delay was condoned by this Tribunal/Court. Therefore, the O.A. may be allowed in terms of Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Writ A No. 11282/2018 Ramesh Chandra Bari and 13 others V. Union of India and 04 others’ in which the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to allow the Writ Petition for grant of compensation to the petitioners/their legal heirs to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs. Counsel for the applicant further submitted that since the applicant has also attained the age of superannuation and accordingly at this stage, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.

Counsel for the respondents has filed the counter reply wherein the respondents have submitted that a policy had been introduced by the railway administration for regularization of ex-casual labours whose names were born on the casual labour live register or in supplementary live register vide letter dated 30.08.2001 and pursuant to this, the casual labour who born in the said live register required to submit their application on prescribed proforma by 30.09.2001. However, in the instant case, though the applicant had been named in the casual labour live register, but did not apply for regularization on the basis of Railway Board Policy RBE No. 42 of 2001 dated 28.02.2001. He further submitted that the office of D.R.M. (P), Jhansi has issued an order for consideration of such application duly received by the last date i.e. 30.09.2001 and in the record of respondents, there is no such application made by the applicant for regularization. He has made one representation in the year 2008 that too after delay of seven years and thereafter instant O.A. was filed in the year 2013. Therefore, he is not entitled for benefit of any relief, claimed in pursuance to the Railway Board Policy dated 22.10.1980 or letter dated 30.08.2001 issued by the office of Divisional Railway Manager (P), Jhansi.

Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.

There is no dispute with regard to engagement of the applicant as casual labour (Waterman) and casual labour card has clearly reflected number of working days in the year 1986 as 110 days, in the year 1988 as 114 days, in the year 1989 as 113 days and in the year 1991, he had worked for 71 days as a Hot Weather Waterman (MRCL). From perusal of letter dated 22.04.1990, it is apparent that the applicant was granted MRCL status and his name was mentioned at serial No. 13 in the said list. Further as on 30.08.2021, in the supplementary casual labour register, his name was also mentioned for further verification. Thereafter, no pleadings or record available of any application made by the applicant for appointment or for regularization till 2008. He has made one application dated 26.08.2008 for recruitment as an old face in the North Central Railway, Jhansi Division along with the requisite record. Thereafter, the instant O.A. was filed in the year 2013.

From perusal of Railway Board’s RBE No. 42/2001 dated 28.02.2001 which was issued after approval of the Railway Board for resorting to direct recruitment for filling up Group ‘D’ vacancy in the railway either by absorption of ex casual labour borne on the Live/Supplementary Live Casual Labour register or by doing fresh recruitment from open market. In the instant case, the Jhansi Division had initiated the process of engagement of casual labour whose names found place in the casual labour live register/supplementary casual labour live register vide letter dated 30.08.2001 and the last date was fixed as 30.09.2001 for receipt of application. Since the applicant has not made any application in the year 2001, therefore, the case of applicant was not considered by the respondents’ department. His only application in the year 2008 cannot give any benefit to him at such belated stage. Once the benefit of Railway Board policy was given to the persons who were interested for appointment or for regularization to group ‘D’ post, the applicant cannot claim parity with such similarly placed persons who were born in the casual labour live register and were regularized on the basis of their application in pursuance of Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), Jhansi dated 30.08.2001. The relief for compensation after attaining the age of 60 years, in the light of Judgment of Hon’ble High Court in Ramesh Chandra Bari (supra) is also misconceived as the facts of the case in the case of Ramesh Chandra Bari are different and does not apply in the present case.

In view of the above discussion, this Tribunal finds that the O.A. is devoid of merit hence, dismissed. All the pending MAs shall be deemed to have been disposed of. No order as to costs.