AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.K. Merathia, J.—Petitioners are claiming regularization. They earlier filed writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 7242 of 2006 which was disposed of on 18.12.2006. On the submission of learned Counsel, appearing for the respondents, the competent authority was directed to consider the petitioners'' representation. Pursuant to the said order the competent authority of the Ministry of Coal considered petitioners'' representation and rejected it on 12.4.2007 by passing the following order:
Legally, the Part-Time Tribunal at Ranchi, has been set up under the '' provision of the CBA (A&D) Act, 1957, with the objective to settle disputes regarding payment of compensation against land acquisition under the said Act. The establishment of the Tribunal is for a limited period and its tenure is extended from time to time subject to the number of pending cases for disposal. Further, the working of the Tribunal is part-time in nature and is not permanent. You have been appointed on purely temporary basis by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and the Ministry of Coal has no role whatever, in this regard.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it has been decided by the competent authority that your request for regularization of services has no legal base. This disposes off your representation dated 15.1.2007 in compliance with the Order dated 18.12.2006 issued by the Hon''ble High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi.
You are however at liberty to apply to Coal India Limited for consideration of your request on compassionate grounds subject to clearance of the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal.
The letter dated 18.7.2007 was relied by the petitioner to show that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal forwarded the petitioner''s request to the Chairman, Coal India Limited to consider the case sympathetically, observing that the law of the land established by the Supreme Court is that the service of a workman who had put in 240 days continuous service should be regularized.
I see no reason to interfere with the said order dated 12.4.2007, rejecting the petitioners'' claim. The Authority took into consideration, relevant aspects. The said liberty will not create any right in favour of the petitioner. Moreover Coal India Ltd., has no role to play and therefore the request of the Presiding Officer, is also irrelevant. It appears that the Presiding Officer was not knowing about the Constitution Bench Judgment Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others Vs. Umadevi and Others, . In view of the said judgment, this Court cannot issue direction to the respondents to regularize them. Further, the petitioners cannot rely on paragraph 53 of the Judgment of Uma Devi (supra) inasmuch as the Tribunal is a part lime Tribunal.
4 In the circumstance, no relief can be granted. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.