Roshan Lal Son Of Shri Hari Ram vs Union Of India & Others

Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)

Shri A.D. Singh, ld. counsel for the applicant and S/Shri Chanchal Kumar Rai, Atul Kumar Shahi ld. counsels for the respondents are present.

The applicant is aggrieved that he has not been given the benefit of regularization of services by the respondents in whose organization he was

working as casual labour whereas many people either similarly placed or who were junior to him were regularized. By virtue of the instant O.A., the

applicant seeks the following relief(s): -

“(i) To issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for record and quashing the impugned order dated 25.2.2008,

6.4.2009 and 6.9.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1 and 2 same was communicated by the respondent No. 3 shown as Annexure No. A-1,

A-2 and A-3 to this original application compilation No. I.

(ii) To issue a suitable order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to absorb and regularize the services of the

applicant on any Group ‘D’ post on the basis of live/supplementary live casual labour born registers as per scheme of Railway Board

from the date of juniors have been regularized with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Grant such other reliefs as the applicant might be found entitled to, in the facts and circumstances of this case.

(iv) Allow the original application with cost.â€​

Shri A.D. Singh, ld. counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have pushed the applicant, who was a very low placed employee, into

multiple litigations and the applicant has been suffering the ignominy of approaching either this Tribunal or the Hon’ble High Court time and again

to claim his bonafide dues. Ld. counsel for the applicant draws attention to series of orders which have been passed in favour of the applicant by the

Tribunal or by the Hon’ble High Court giving categorical direction to the respondents that the claim of applicant be determined after ascertaining

the facts and on the basis of documents on record. He further draws attention to the series of the orders passed by the competent authority pursuant

to the directions of the Tribunal/Court and points out that on the face of it, it is apparent that the respondents are taking the decision in contravention to

their own policy, and in this regard he draws attention to a speaking order wherein applicant’s case has been rejected on the ground that he has

not studied up to 08th class and that he is overage. Ld. counsel draws attention to a circular of the respondents which makes an unambiguous mention

that in the case of casual labour working in the department, the condition of educational qualification must not be insisted upon. As far as the issue of

applicant becoming overage is concerned, ld. counsel points out that had the respondents considered the case of applicant in time, the applicant was

very young and within the age limit. The applicant has crossed the maximum age limit allowed for such regularization only on account of laxity of

respondents in considering the claim of applicant. Ld. Counsel prays that the benefit of regularization to the applicant be given till the date in the year

1989 on which he was disengaged. Ld. counsel for the applicant finds support from the order passed by this Tribunal on 23.12.2018 in O.A. No.

451/2008 in which this Tribunal allowed the claim of such labourers who were working with the applicant and were similarly placed. Ld. counsel

further submits that since the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are similar, the present applicant also deserves the same relief.

Concluding his arguments, ld. counsel for the applicant has referred to the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad passed in Writ Petition

No. 1578 of 2008.

Ld. counsel for the respondents on the other hand draws attention to their own counter affidavit which refers to the directions issued by the

Hon’ble High Court and on the basis of which a conscious and well considered decision was taken by the competent authority i.e. Divisional

Engineer, Izzat Nagar regarding the claim of applicant. Ld. counsel specifically mentions that besides not meeting the requirements of age and

educational qualification, the applicant was also not eligible for such screening which leads to regularization as he had not worked for required number

of days. Pointing out to the specific fact, ld. counsel draws attention to para-5 of his counter affidavit wherein it is stated that only those casual

workers whose total working days came to 3194 days were invited for screening and the applicant was not subjected to screening as he had worked

only for 812 days. Ld. counsel further submits that disposal of the representation and the claim of applicant at various stages has been done strictly in

accordance with the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court and this Tribunal in multiple sets of litigations. Ld. counsel drawing attention to

the impugned order, also points out that these orders meet the requirements of a reasoned and speaking order. Ld. counsel for the respondents

referred to the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 818/2010 and O.A. No. 607/2014 in support of their arguments.

Heard ld. counsel for the parties at length and perused the available pleadings on record.

The fact which is not disputed in the instant matter is that the applicant got disengaged in the year 1989. It is virtually impossible now after a lapse

of more than 32 years to determine the claim of the applicant. No doubt, the applicant has been struggling all these years through continuous and

multiple litigations, however, I do not find any conclusive evidence on record to substantiate his claim. Moreover, the competent authority has

considered the representation and claim of the applicant and disposed it of through a detailed and reasoned order. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in

the order passed by the competent authority which may form a substantive ground to establish the rights of the applicant.

In view of the above, it is too belated a stage to give any consideration to the relief sought by the applicant. Further, it is not possible to adjudicate

upon the applicant’s claim in the absence of reliable documents. Accordingly, the O.A. is dismissed. Pending Misc. Applications, if any, are being

dismissed as having become infructuous. No cost.