Sh. Hari Singh vs D.R.M

The applicant has filed the instant OA seeking the following reliefs:

"(a) Set-aside the order/letter of the respondent dated 14.05.2015, whereby the respondent No. 2 has intimated the applicant that the case of the applicant is not covered under the scheme hence the name of the applicant is not included in the list short listed for engagement.

(b) Direct the respondents re-engage the applicant No. 1 to post of Coal Labour with all consequential benefit and also the pay the arrear from 1992 to till date to the applicant No. 1 and arrear from 1992 to till date to the applicant No. 1 and arrear from 1992 to 2008 to 23008 to applicant No. 2.

(c) Pass any order which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance narrated herein above."

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as submitted by the applicant are as follows:

(i) The respondents had prepared a scheme for re-engagement laying down certain stipulations and he is seeking re-engagement as per its terms in preference to his juniors. The applicant had been working as Coal loading and unloading labourer for more than 120 days during the preceding two years as on 01.07.1992.

(ii) Aggrieved with the non-implementation of the scheme, some persons along with the applicant approached this Tribunal through OA No. 2734/91 and batch where applicant was a party in OA No. 331/92. These were disposed of through a common order dated 09.09.1993 in which the respondents were directed to grant the benefit of scheme to the applicants therein, if they were covered under the Scheme (Annexure A-2).

(iii) The applicant had been pursuing the matter in compliance of the OA referred above and finally came to know that all other applicants in the above mentioned OAs have been given the benefit but the same has been denied to the applicant despite his representations dated 25.02.2015 and 16.10.2015.

Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant in this OA is covered under the Scheme and that he is being deprived of his Fundamental Rights by the respondents by his non-engagement.

The respondents in the counter reply have given the details of the policy dated 31.08.1992 and have also referred to the order of the Tribunal in OA No. 2734/91 and batch in which the applicant was a party in OA No. 331/92. They have further mentioned that a list of coal loading labourers who had fulfilled the condition of having completed 120 days during the two years preceding 01.07.1992 was prepared and the applicant did not figure in the list and as such he did not fulfil the conditions of Railway Board Policy dated 31.08.1992. They have further contended that the present OA is highly time barred and can be dismissed on delay and laches.

The applicant has filed a rejoinder more or less reiterating the averments made in the OA. On the issue of delay it has been submitted that the applicant had been pursuing the case for compliance of the order of the Tribunal dated 09.09.1993 and finally came to know that almost all the applicants in the said OA have been granted the benefit of the Scheme. The applicant had given representation on 25.02.2015 and 16.10.2015 but was not considered whereas even as recently as 22.11.2017 similarly situated employees who were applicants in the OA No.331/92 with the applicant, were given temporary status. The applicant has also filed an additional document giving the details of the work done by the applicant.

Learned counsel for the applicant during the course of arguments, contended that certain other employees have been given the benefit of re- engagement. However, he was unable to give any further details in the matter or any other argument helpful to his case. He also did not dispute that in the two years prior to 01.07.1992, as prescribed in the policy of the respondents dated 31.08.1992, the applicant had not worked as a casual labourer for at least 120 days.

Learned counsel for the respondent referred to policy dated 31.08.1992 and argued that since the applicant had not worked for at least 120 days prior to the stipulated date, he is not covered by the policy and was not entitled to any benefit in terms of the policy.

A copy of the Policy decision dated 31.08.1992 has been filed by the applicant. The relevant portion of the policy is as follows:

"In the light of the directions given the CAT/Mohanlal & Ors. vs. UOI and considering all relevant factors, Railway Board have decided that the contract labour engaged on piece rate basis may be considered for engagement as casual labour on the Railway subject to the following stipulations:-

I) Such of the contract labour will be engaged as Casual labour who have worked as such for at least 120 days during the preceding two years as on 1.7.92."

On the issue of delay and laches, in view of the submissions of the applicant which appear reasonable the same is not to be held against the applicant in the interest of justice keeping also in view the fact that such condonation does not affect the right of any other individual.

Having gone through the pleadings and other documents on record including the one giving the details of the work done by the applicant annexed as "The copy of Service Particulars" and after hearing the learned counsels for both sides, it is clear beyond doubt that the applicant had not worked for at least 120 days in the two years preceding 01.07.1992 as stipulated in the policy of the respondents dated 31.08.1992. That being the case, it does not require any further examination to come to the conclusion that the applicant is not entitled to any re-engagement or for appointment in terms of the policy of the respondents mentioned above.

The OA is accordingly dismissed. No costs.