AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Haripal, Member J
In the Original Application, there were four applicants, who had sought a declaration that they are deemed to be absorbed with effect from 03.11.2003 and that they are entitled to get pension and other benefits, taking their date of regularisation notionally from 03.11.2003. The Original Application was considered along with O.A.155/2020, an identical application and both the OAs were disposed of by the common order dated 31.10.2023.
While considering the case of the applicants, it was noticed that the applicant in O.A.155/2020 had 553.5 days of continuous service to his credit. Similarly, the 2nd applicant in O.A.157/2020 had more than 360 days whereas the review applicants, who are the original applicants 1,3 and 4 had only 177, 197 and 171 days respectively to their credit. So, on the on the assumption that one should have minimum 360 days of casual labour service to their credit, the OA, as far as they are concerned, was dismissed. In other words, O.A155/2020 was allowed and 157/2022 was allowed in part only in favour of the 2nd applicant, who had more than 360 days of casual labour service in his credit. Now, the original applicants 1,3 and 4 have moved this Review Application contending that there is no such minimum casual labour service as 360 days for considering the eligibility. In Inder Pal Yadav and others v. Union of India [(1985) 2 SCC 648]I, according to them, 360 days was required as eligibility condition for treating them as temporary as on 01.01.1984. According to the applicants, even in the common order in O.A.700/2017 etc. dated 15.02.2023, there were applicants, who had only 142 days of casual labour service, that 360 days was never taken as a benchmark for future regularisation. So, according to them, an error has crept in, which is apparent on the face of the records and on that basis, the order is sought to be recalled.
The respondents have opposed the application. According to them, the order was passed appreciating the law and facts correctly, the order does not warrant review.
I heard Sri.Martin G. Thottan, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri.Sreejith N, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents.
According to the learned counsel for the applicants, no minimum casual labour service was fixed by the Apex Court in Inderpal Yadav's case. 360 days was insisted only as one time measure to treat a temporary Railway servant as per the scheme approved. According to the learned Standing Counsel, 360 days has bearing only for treating a casual labourer as temporary and those who are in service at that time. According to the larned counsel, in fact 120 days of casual labour service alone was required, treating one temporary is independent and a one time measure and there is no rational distinction between those who had 360 days of casual labour service and those who had less than 360 days.
On the other hand, according to Sri.Sreejith, there is no error apparent on the face of the records, there is no distinction between casual labour service and temporary service, in paragraph 14 of the order a clear finding has been made, if the applicnats are aggrieved, that should have been challenged seeking judicial review.
After hearing counsel on both sides and going through the records, I feel that the Tribunal has committed an error in assuming that there was a benchmark of 360 days of casual labour service for grant of regularisation. As rightly pointed out, even in Inder Pal Yadav's case, there is no stipulation that only those who had put in 360 days of casual labour service should have been included in the Live Register.
Secondly, as pointed out by the learned counsel, even in the reply statement of the respondents, there was no contention that the petitioners in the review application are not entitled to get any relief since they did not have minimum 360 days of casual labour service to their credit.
I am convinced that an error has happened while holding that the applicants are not entitled to get relief since they did not put in 360 days of casual labour service. Therefore, Annexure-RA1 order to the above extent is recalled and the OA will be posted for hearing.
Review Application is allowed as above. Post the Original Application on 15.01.2026 for hearing.
(Dated, this the 29th December, 2025)