Rajeev Ranjan & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Learned counsel for the parties are present and heard.

The applicant has approached this Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, praying for the following reliefs:–

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present O.A. has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to grant appointment to the applicants in the light of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 52 of 2016. He further submits that the applicants are identically placed with the persons who were granted relief by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is further submitted that, after getting knowledge of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the applicants had also approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 431 of 2022, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 11.07.2022. Learned counsel submits that the said order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been annexed by the respondents with their counter affidavit as Annexure-2, with the observation that if any remedy is available to the applicants in pursuance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 52 of 2016 and connected Writ Petition No. 09 of 2020, the applicants may avail the same in pursuance of the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, identical benefit may also be given to the applicants.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the prayer made in the O.A. and submits that the applicants were engaged through a contractor, namely, Mr. Satya Prakash Singh, who was awarded a tender for rendering annual maintenance services of Railgaon Colony and the G.M. Office Complex at Subedarganj in different capacities, such as bungalow peon, safai karmchari, horticulture work, etc. However, the case decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court relates to railway parcel porters who had rendered service for a considerable period and, as per the scheme of the Railway Board, their cases were considered. He further submits that there is no employer-employee relationship between the applicants and the Railway Administration. Moreover, the contractual engagement was for a period of one year, and some of the applicants were disengaged upon expiry of the contractual period and were not engaged upon subsequent renewal of the contract. Therefore, the relief sought by the applicants for extending identical benefit of the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 52 of 2016 along with other connected matters is not maintainable.

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, it appears that the applicants were issued entry cards for performing different kinds of work in the Railgaon Colony at Subedarganj under North Central Railway. The applicants have also annexed identity cards issued through the contractor, showing their engagement for different kinds of work in the railway colony premises situated at Subedarganj.

It is also not disputed that the applicants had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Writ Petition (Civil) No. 431 of 2022 in the matter of Suraj Kumar and Others v. Union of India, which was disposed of by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the following observations:

From a perusal of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is observed that if any remedy lies to the applicants in the light of the judgment passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 52 of 2016 and connected Writ Petition No. 09 of 2020, the remedy is available to the applicants. However, from the record, it is not apparent whether any alternative remedy has been availed by the applicants. It is, however, noticed that in paragraph 6 of the O.A., the applicants have declared that they have not availed any alternative remedy. From the record, it is also revealed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 20.11.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 09 of 2020, held that the said order is only applicable to railway parcel porters and not to any other category of workers. However, the applicants have not pleaded that they are also Railway parcel porters.

Considering the limited nature of the prayer made by the applicants, this O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the applicants to submit a fresh representation before the competent authority/respondent No. 3, ventilating their grievance and placing reliance upon the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 52 of 2016, decided on 28.11.2018, as well as the order passed in Writ Petition No. 09 of 2020. Thereafter, respondent No. 3/competent authority shall consider the same and pass a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

Accordingly, the instant Original Application stands disposed of with the above-mentioned directions.

It is made clear that this Tribunal has not entered into the question of delay, laches, or the merits of the applicants’ claim. All issues are left open for consideration by the respondents.

All pending M.A.s, if any, stand disposed of. No order as to costs.