AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-
“8(1) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate order or direction to the respondents to treat / deem the services of the deceased as absorbed / regularized as per his seniority in the Railway Department, and grant all consequential benefits from retrospective dates to the applicant being his legal heir.
8(2) The Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate directions or order to the respondents to grant the pension to the widow of the deceased in the facts and circumstances of the case as per extant rules and policy of pension and gratuity rules.
8(3) The Hon’ble Tribunal is respectfully prayed to direct the respondents to give an appointment to the applicant on compensation ground as per the extent policy in the Railway Organization being the applicant as his legal heir.
8(4) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper may also kindly be passed in the favour of the applicant in the larger interest of the equity, justice and law.”
The applicant is the son of the deceased employee, Shri Nathu Lal, who once upon a time had worked as a Casual Labourer for a total period of 144 days, on and off in different spells, during the period from 10.03.1980 to 10.11.1986 and whose services were dispensed with by the respondent-department with effect from 10.11.1986, after which he never worked with the respondent-department. However, in the year 2013, his father filed an OA No.291/604/2013 before this Bench of the Tribunal, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 12.09.2019.
2(a). Thereafter, the present applicant filed a representation with the respondent-department seeking family pension for his mother and appointment on compassionate grounds for himself. The respondents considered the said representation and rejected his claims, stating that the first OA No.291/604/2013 was dismissed as withdrawn. Regarding his claim for residual benefits and compassionate appointment, the respondents stated in the impugned order that the same could not be granted because, on verifying of the records, it was found that the name of the father of the applicant did not exist in the live register and there was no certified / credible documents available to establish that he was granted temporary status. It was further stated that his father, Shri Nathu Lal, was never regularized in the railway service. Aggrieved with the same, the applicant, who is son of the deceased employee, Shri Nathu Lal, has filed the present OA.
On the other hand, the respondents, in their reply, while reiterating the stand taken by them in the impugned order dated 04.03.2020 (Annexure A-1), have further stated that the applicant has failed to demonstrate continuous working of Late Shri Nathu Lal for more than 120 days. In fact grant of temporary status only entitles for certain benefits till grant of permanent status or to be eligible for it on the terms and conditions provided for the purpose. It did not entitle the applicant for treating his father regularized / absorbed in Railway service.
3(a). The respondents stated that grant of temporary status or conducting medical examination did not regularize the services until any order to this effect is passed in pursuance thereof. Bare perusal of representations of Late Shri Nathu Lal would clarify that his services were not regularized due to absence of vacancies rather it was dispensed with in absence of ELA. He never worked subsequent to 10.11.1986. Thus, no right accrued to him for grant of permanent status. Accordingly, any challenge by taking the plea of medical examination and temporary status to treat him absorbed or regularized is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected.
3(b). The respondents further stated that applicant cannot be eligible and entitled for pension and other benefits of Late Shri Nathu Lal especially when his services were never regularized and thus, he was not a railway servant.
Heard both the learned counsel for parties and carefully perused the pleadings, documents and materials available on record.
The father of the applicant, Shri Nathu Lal, worked as Casual Labourer for a total period of 144 days at different intervals between 10.03.1980 to 10.11.1986 and, thereafter, admittedly, he had never worked in any capacity with the respondent-department. In fact, as has been stated, he had not even worked for a continuous period of 120 days. Neither did he challenge his disengagement nor claimed the grant of temporary status or regularization in service for almost 27 long years, and it was only in 2013 that he sought temporary status and regularization vide OA No.604/2013 filed before this Bench of the Tribunal. During the pendency of the said OA, he expired and the OA was dismissed as withdrawn.
The order dated 12.09.2019 is reproduced below :-
“After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the applicant wishes to withdraw the present Original Application as during pendency of the Original Application, the applicant expired on 16.04.2018 and now his legal representatives wish to pursue their remedies before the authorities by way of representations in order to claim residual benefits. Dismissed as withdrawn.”
It is evident that the matter was argued, but the same Central Administrative Tribunalwas requested to be withdrawn by the learned counsel for the applicant, and the same was dismissed as withdrawn without granting any opportunity. As such, effectively seeking the same relief, the applicant is barred from approaching this Bench of the Tribunal. The relief of grant of temporary status or regularization, which the father of the applicant, who was indeed the employee of the respondents, could not get, cannot be sought by his beneficiaries merely by stepping into his shoes as his legal heirs and rearticulating the relief clause seeking family pension as well as appointment on compassionate ground, which, in fact, are the consequential reliefs of a “regular employee” which the applicant’s father never was. When the father of the applicant was not successful in getting himself declared as temporary status employee or regular employee, then merely by filing a fresh OA, his legal heirs cannot bestow the status of a regular employee or temporary status on the deceased employee.
As is evident, the father of the applicant filed the aforesaid OA after 27 long years from the date of cause of action. Otherwise also, as has been stated by the respondents, as per the Railway Board Circular dated 22.11.1984, the name of the Casual Labourer, who had been disengaged because of the completion of work and had not been reengaged within two calendar years from the date of their disengagement, was required to be deleted from the Casual Labour Register. It is an admitted fact that the father of the applicant worked till 10.11.1986, when his services were disengaged and he was never reengaged thereafter. As such, his name was struck off from the live register.
Even for the period that he was engaged, it was in broken spells, and he had never worked continuously for 120 days. His 144 days of temporary broken spells ended way back on 10.11.1986, for which the employee was never regularized, and there were no vacancies available for regularization or absorption in Government service. Such regularization or absorption cannot be claimed, that too in the year 2020, almost 34 inordinately long years from his disengagement as a Casual Labourer.
The relief sought by the applicant in the present Original Application being only the consequential entitlement of the family of a regular Government servant and since the father of the applicant was never absorbed in the Railway service nor regularized, the applicant is not entitled to the relief claimed for. Accordingly, the OA stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.