Ramjeet & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors.

Shri Santosh Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri Krishna Kumar Ojha and Shri Manoj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing.

The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:

The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicants were employed under the respondents on different dates in the year ranging from 1974 to 1977 as casual labours at CPC rate in the Northern Railway at Jaunpur. Contentions of the applicants is that they have worked for more than 03 to 06 years without break so much so that they have rendered continuous service of 120 days and as per Para 2001 (b) (i) of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, they were entitled to be granted temporary status. Applicants have contended that they and other similarly situated persons were retrenched w.e.f. 15.07.1982 without following the provisions of law. Their services could not have been dispensed with without giving proper notice as required under Rule 149 of Indian Railway Establishment Code and other provisions of Section 25(F) of Industrial Disputes Act.

Applicants approached before this Tribunal through OA No 1000 of 1991 which was disposed of by way of giving a direction to the respondents on 22.04.1992 to consider the case of regularization of the applicants as it does not affect the rights of other employees. But in spite of a clear direction, no relief was afforded to the applicants by the respondents by citing the ground that 66 persons are not working due to non-availability of work and thus, their case will be considered first before the applicants. Further, the applicants also received a letter dated 21.05.2003 from the respondents regarding the form to be filled by them to give details of biodata, service record etc. Although all such details were provided, no action was taken at the end of the respondents. OA further contends that the applicants came to know that in August 2006, 8 persons who were much junior to the applicants were included in the services and were regularized without considering the case of the applicants. Also, the applicants have alleged that the respondents have advertised about 3270 posts of Gangman / Trackman on which the applicants were employed besides several other Group D. Being aggrieved, the applicants filed OA No 1210 of 2006. The said OA was partly allowed on 04.02.2011 with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicants in terms of directions issued by the Tribunal in OA No 1000 of 1991 and related CP No 113 of 1992.

Applicants have further contended that since they have been pursuing their matter since 1991, they are not responsible for the fact that they have crossed the maximum age barrier as the matter was kept pending by the respondents themselves despite a clear instruction of the Tribunal. The OA further states that instead of complying with the directions issued in OA No 1210 of 2006, respondents cancelled the entire notification dated 29.10.2005 and approached before the Tribunal by filing MA No 1406 of 2011 in OA No 1210 of 2011, which was disposed of by modifying the original order dated 04.02.2011, vide order dated 21.05.2012. Being aggrieved still, applicants again approached through OA No 1293 of 2012 which was disposed of directing the respondents to consider applicants against the notification to be issued immediately in the future vide order dated 01.10.2012. Applicants approached before the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad through CMWP No 10928 of 2013 challenging modification of the order dated 21.05.2012. The said petition was allowed vide order dated 25.04.2014 and order dated 21.05.2012 was quashed. After the aforesaid decision, the respondents again opined that out of so called 66 senior persons, 17 were employed as per the order of the Apex Court and remaining 49 were not known to the office nor have they contacted for any work and it was further informed that 26 posts of Gangman remained vacant. When no action was taken in the case of the applicants, they filed Misc. Execution Application No 14 of 2015. During hearing on the same, the respondents again reiterated their old stand that out of 66 senior persons, 47 are still waiting for work. And the execution application was dismissed on 10.07.2017.

Being aggrieved from that order, applicants approached before Hon’ble High Court through Writ Petition No 58240 of 2017 but the same was dismissed on the ground that order dated 08.05.2015 of the respondents wherein they have reiterated their stand, remains unchallenged. Applicants approached before the Apex Court through SLP (C) No 11358 of 2018 which was disposed of on 11.05.2018. Respondents issued letter dated 06.02.2020 stating that as per order dated 11.5.2018, screening was to be conducted for which applicants were required to appear on 19.02.2020 at DRM Office, Lucknow. However, respondents passed the order dated 18.03.2020 noting down that the applicants have attained the age of superannuation. Applicants have contended that when the orders were not complied with even after approaching the Apex Court, they filed Contempt Petition No 1150 of 2019 which was disposed of on the basis of stand taken in the counter that claim of the applicants along with 49 others were considered by the screening commit and so nothing more needs to be done in the petition.

Thus, by way of this OA, applicants have alleged that they have been shown to have crossed the age of superannuation but the fact is that respondents have not considered the case of the applicants in time despite repeated directions of the Tribunal, and thus prayed to allow the OA with consequential relief.

Counter has been filed by the respondents wherein it is stated that the case of the applicants has been considered again and again by the competent authority of the respondents. After meticulous consideration, vide order dated 08.05.2015, the candidature of the applicants was turned down and the said order was never challenged. Further, the grievance of the petitioners to consider them pursuant to the notification dated 29.10.2005 also ceased to exist once the said notification was cancelled. In compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court vide order dated 11.05.2018, the respondents issued letters to 54 persons including the applicants dated 06.02.2020 calling upon them to submit their requisite information / documents for screening. In the screening, the applicants were found to be aged above 60 years and thus their candidature was rejected. Respondents have stated that the case of the applicants is settled and the same need not be reopened again at this stage when all the applicants have already crossed the age of superannuation. were never engaged as casual labours and never granted temporary status. They were simply daily rated labourers who are engaged for seasonal and intermittent works as and when needed on requirement basis. Thus, the Circular / OM dated 10.09.1993 of DoPT is not applicable to them. Contention has also been made that the prayer for conferment of temporary status is uncalled for also because the applicants have not worked for 240 days consecutively in a year and also that they had never applied against any advertised / notified vacancies.

Rejoinder has been filed by the applicants reiterating the same facts and circumstances as narrated in the OA.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were engaged as Casual Labours and appointed as Gangman in between 1974-77 in the respondents’ department. They have worked for more than 3 to 6 years without any break and thus were entitled for the temporary status and subsequent regularization. It is further submitted that initially the applicants approached before this Court for redressal of their grievance when they were not absorbed in the department. It was further argued that the applicant’s OA was dismissed. Thereafter, they had approached before the Hon’ble High Court and the High Court also did not interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Later, the applicants approached before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No 11358 of 2018 and the Apex Court directed to take action vide order dated 11.05.2018.

Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that candidates junior to the applicants have been absorbed in the department but applicants’ prayer have been rejected. In compliance of the direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, applicants as well as 54 other casual labours were directed to appear for the screening before the screening committee. All the applicants appeared before the screening committee and vide order dated 18.03.2020, result was published with the observation that all the casual labourers appeared for screening were found to be aged above 60 years. Thus, they were not found suitable for absorption and regularization. Thus, the instant original application has been filed challenging the order dated 18.03.2020. Learned counsel for the applicants further argued that although the applicants have crossed the age of 60 years but their claim for absorption and regularization cannot be solely rejected on this ground. To substantiate his case, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 23.04.2026 passed by this Tribunal in OA No 158 of 2023 titled Prem Singh and others Vs Union of India and others and also on the judgment dated 25.08.2026 passed by this Tribunal in OA No 573 of 2014 titled Isam Pal and others Vs Union of India and others and argued that the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid cases are similar to that of the instant case.

Learned counsel for the applicants has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ A No 11282 of 2018 titled Ramesh Chandra Bari and 13 others Vs Union of India and 4 others and argued that in the said case, identical facts and circumstances were there as operating in the instant case and the Hon’ble Court had directed for payment of Rs. 5 lacs compensation to the applicants therein. Similarly, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment dated 21.01.2026 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22533/2025 titled Ram Abhilash Singh & Ors Vs Union of India and Ors and argued that the compensation of Rs. 5 lacs awarded by the Hon’ble High Court in the aforesaid cited case was enhanced and increased to Rs. 8 lacs by the Apex Court. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances, prayer was made by the learned counsel for the applicants that if the applicants have already attained the age of superannuation and the benefit of regularization / absorption cannot be awarded to them, they be awarded the compensation as awarded by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case.

Learned counsel for the respondents referring to the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit, argued that the case of the applicants was considered again and again and vide order dated 08.05.2015, the candidature of the applicants was turned down and the said order was never challenged. Further, the grievance of the petitioners to consider them pursuant to the notification dated 29.10.2005 also ceased to exist once the said notification was cancelled. Learned counsel further argued that in compliance of the directions issued by the Apex Court vide order dated 11.05.2018, the respondents issued letters to 54 persons including the applicants dated 06.02.2020 calling upon them to submit their requisite information / documents for screening. In the screening, the applicants were found to be aged above 60 years and thus their candidature was rejected. Respondents have stated that the case of the applicants is settled and the same need not be reopened again at this stage when all the applicants have already crossed the age of superannuation. Further, the applicants were never granted temporary status so no question arises to grant them the benefit of absorption or regularization. Thus, referring to entire facts and circumstances of the case and case laws cited in the Counter, prayer was made to dismiss the OA.

I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records including Counter and Rejoinder.

As the facts of the case are narrated above in detail, the same are not reiterated for the sake of brevity. The applicants were engaged as casual labourers under the Northern Railway at Jaunpur between 1974 and 1977. They claimed to have rendered continuous service for several years and, having completed 120 days of service, asserted entitlement to temporary status under Para 2001(b)(i) of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual. They alleged that they were retrenched on 15.07.1982 without compliance with Rule 149 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code and Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. The applicants repeatedly approached the Tribunal and higher courts seeking regularization. In OA No. 1000 of 1991, the Tribunal directed consideration of their regularization, but the respondents did not grant relief. Subsequent proceedings, including OA Nos. 1210 of 2006 and 1293 of 2012, resulted in further directions for consideration of their claims. The Allahabad High Court also quashed the modification of an earlier Tribunal order in 2014. Despite these proceedings, the applicants alleged continued inaction by the respondents. Their execution proceedings were dismissed in 2017, followed by dismissal of their writ petition. The Supreme Court disposed of their SLP in 2018. Screening was subsequently conducted in 2020, but the respondents rejected the claim on the ground that the applicants had attained the age of superannuation. The applicants therefore filed the present OA seeking consequential relief, contending that the delay was attributable to the respondents’ failure to comply with earlier judicial directions. Respondents on the other hand, have contended that the relief was allowed to those casual labours who had approached before this Tribunal challenging the screening result. The judgment and order passed in the writ petition as well as in the SLP cannot be applied to grant relief to the present applicants in this OA who have challenged the same at a belated stage and further the case of the applicants for regularization or absorption cannot be considered at this stage when they have crossed the age of superannuation and their candidature were rejected on this ground during screening by the screening committee.

It is pertinent to record here that similarly situated casual labours had also filed OA before this Bench as OA No 370 of 2015 (Raj Bahadur Singh and 24 others Vs Union of India and 4 others). Said OA was rejected / dismissed and the order passed in the OA was challenged before the Hon’ble High Court through Writ A No 11282 of 2018 which was decided on 31.01.2025 and the writ petition was partly allowed with following directions:

Judgment and order passed in the aforesaid writ petition was challenged by the casual labours themselves before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Special Leave Petition (C) No 22533 of 2025 and it was decided enhancing the compensation to the tune of Rs. 8 lacs. The applicants herein have also participated in the screening test conducted on 19.02.2020 and vide order dated 18.03.2020, their candidature for regularization / absorption was rejected on the ground that they were found over-aged. Against the said order, the applicants have approached before this Tribunal through the instant original application. It is also pertinent to record here that similarly situated casual labours had challenged the screening result and when OAs were dismissed, they 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. Furthermore, the order of High Court was challenged before the Apex Court vide Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22533 of 2025 and the Apex Court enhanced the compensation from 5 lacs to 8 lacs. The applicants herein being similarly situated to the applicants of the aforesaid referred cases, also fall in the same bracket and are liable to be extended similar relief. 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.

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 applicant no 1, 2, 3 and 5. The same may also be paid to the legal heirs of applicant no 4. 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 @ GPF rate until the realization of the amount.

All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.