Allahabad High Court
Union Of India & Another vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 10 August, 2011
Bench: Vineet Saran, Ran Vijai Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
A.F.R.
Court No. 29
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1758 of 2010
Union of India and another
Vs.
Central Administrative Tribunal, at Allahabad and another
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.
The brief facts of this case are that the respondent no. 2 has worked as a casual labour with the Railways and his name finds place in the 'Live Register' of the casual labourers maintained by the Railways. The matter regarding regularization of casual labourers was considered by the Railway Board. By its communication dated 11.5.1999, all the General Mangers of the Divisions of the Indian Railways were required to prepare the list of casual labourers from the 'Live Register/Supplementary Live Register' as on 1.4.199. This was done so in order to enable the regularization of the casual labourers. The name of the respondent no. 2 was there in the muster roll of the casual labourers but still his case for regularization was not considered by Jhansi Division of the Indian Railways. He thus filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, which was disposed of with the direction that his representation be considered. By order dated 1.5.2009, the representation of the respondent no. 2 was rejected on the ground that he was over age as on the date when his application was considered in September, 2001. Challenging the said order, the respondent no. 2 filed Original Application No. 1421 of 2009, which has been allowed vide order dated 27.11.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.
We have heard Sri A.K. Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 2 and have perused the record. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage.
The case of the petitioner-Union of India is that the date of birth of respondent no. 2 being 5.7.1957, he was clearly over 43 years of age when his application was considered in the year 2001-02 and he was thus found ineligible for considering of regularization on the ground of being over age. The Tribunal has however considered the circular/letter of the Railway Board dated 11.5.1999 wherein the direction was to provide the list of casual labourers as on 1.4.1999 and on that ground the Tribunal has held that since on the cut off date i.e. 1.4.1999 the applicant was within the age of 43 years, his case for regularization should be considered, treating him to be as within the prescribed age limit.
From perusal of record, it is clear that as per the circular of Railway Board dated 11.5.1999, different divisions of the Indian Railways were required to maintain 'Live Register/Supplementary Live Register' of all casual labourers as on 1.4.1999. Different divisions may have taken up the matter for regularization of the casual labourers at different points of time. In case if the cut off date for the purpose of regularization is taken as the date when the application is considered for regularization by the respective divisions and not 1.4.1999 as directed by the Railway Board, there would be confusion and anomaly in the process of regularization. This we say so because different divisions were taking up the matter for regularization on different dates, in which case where the process of regularization was initiated early, many such casual labourers as the respondent no. 2 would have been considered for regularization and in other divisions where the process is initiated after a few years, candidates such as the respondent no. 2 would be at a disadvantage. There has to be uniformity in the process of regularization and when the Railway Board itself has directed for the 'Live Register' to be maintained as on 1.4.1999, the eligibility criteria as on such date ought to have been taken into account as the cut off date for such purpose. As such, we do not find any discrepancy in the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to cut off date for the purpose of considering the age limit for regularization of a candidate.
The Tribunal has however disposed of the Original Application filed by the respondent no. 2 with the following directions, which is contained in paragraph 6 of the order. The said directions are quoted below:-
"In view of the above, I set aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2009 and direct the Respondents to consider the applicant for regularization in accordance with Rule, Notification etc. treating him within age limit. Keeping in mind the observations made above within two months of receipt of certified copy of this order and place him above his juniors in seniority with all consequential benefits/privileges"
From the above, it is clear that besides the direction for considering the case of the respondent no. 2 for regularization within two months, after treating him within the age limit, the Tribunal has further directed that the respondent no. 2 be placed above his juniors in seniority with all consequential benefits/privileges. The latter part of the order providing for the respondent no. 2 to be placed as senior to such persons who were his juniors, cannot be justified and such direction is liable to be quashed on the ground that it pre-supposes that the regularization of the respondent no. 2 has already been allowed. Even otherwise, the prayer made by the respondent no. 2 before the Tribunal was only for quashing the order dated 1.5.2009 and considering his absorption on suitable group 'D' post as per the notification of the Railway Board dated 11.5.1999. In our view, the Tribunal has thus erred in law in issuing directions in the latter part of paragraph 6 of its order dated 27.11.2009.
In view of the aforesaid, we modify the order of the Tribunal dated 27.11.2009 to the extent that the latter part of the direction given in paragraph 6, whereby it has been directed that the respondent no. 2 shall be placed senior to and above his juniors with all consequential benefits/privileges, is hereby quashed. The other direction to consider the case of the respondent no. 2 for regularization in accordance with rules/notification etc. applicable in his case treating him within the age prescribed limit is confirmed. The petitioner no. 2 (Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Central Railway, Jhansi) shall take appropriate decision in the matter with regard to regularization of the respondent no. 2 within two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the petitioner no. 2.
This writ petition stands allowed only to the extent as indicated above.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt: 10.8.2011
pkb/abhiShek
(Vineet Saran, J.)
(Ran Vijai Singh, J.)
