Allahabad High Court
Union Of India Thru' General ... vs Nagendra Bahadur Singh & Another on 22 September, 2017
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?A.F.R.
Court No. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 25323 of 2008
Petitioner :- Union Of India Thru' General Manager & Others
Respondent :- Nagendra Bahadur Singh & Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Govind Saran,Kaushalesh Pratap Singh,S.C.
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Om,Harshita Rani,S.C.,Shekhar Kumar
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Lochan Mehrotra,J.
Heard Shri K.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Shekhar Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1.
The railways have come up assailing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 26th July, 2007 contending that the Tribunal has erroneously proceeded to allow the original application of the respondent no. 1 for being regularised against a Group C post which is in the teeth of the pronouncement of the Full Bench judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 57/96 decided on 30.10.2000 (Aslam Khan Vs. Union of India and ors.). It is further submitted that this grant of regularisation otherwise also is impermissible keeping in view paragraph 1007 of the Railways Establishment Manual Volume II which also does not extend any such benefit and to the contrary the regularisation can only be made against a Group B Post. Thus the challenge raised by the respondent No. 1 in respect of the regularisation against a Group D post was absolutely misplaced and the Tribunal ought not to have extended the said benefit. Hence the order deserves to be set aside.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent and it is urged that the petitioners have clearly violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as persons who were extended the benefit of the judgment by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal stand on the same footing as the respondent no. 1 and therefore denial of the benefits of regularisation to the answering respondent clearly amounted to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence the Tribunal was justified in extending the said relief to the answering respondent.
It is further submitted that the order of the Jabalpur Bench in Original Application No. 398/1998 decided on 12th March, 2003 was challenged before the Madhya Pradesh, High Court which failed and a Special Leave Petition filed against the same also met the same fate. It is urged that once the said judgment and order of the Tribunal has been affirmed up to the Apex Court and the answering respondent also is within the same category of aspirants claiming regularisation, then the stand of the petitioners before the Tribunal that the answering respondent was not a party to the said proceedings cannot be an argument to deny the benefit to similarly situated persons. It is therefore urged that the petition deserves to be dismissed and the order of the Tribunal deserves to be affirmed.
We have considered the submissions raised and having heard learned counsel for the parties it is correct that the order of 12th March, 2003 of the Jabalpur Bench does not take notice of the full bench judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 30.10.2000 (Aslam Khan Vs. Union of India and Ors.). It also does not take into consideration the scheme and the rules applicable for regularisation which is available against Group D posts and not against Group C posts where the posts have to be filled up by way of promotion through selection by the Railway Recruitment Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner is therefore right in his submission that if such regularisation is permitted unabated the same would amount to inclusion of persons through the back door against a post which has to be filled up by way of selection and promotion.
However, having noticed the aforesaid facts what we find is that the Jabalpur Bench order dated 12th March 2003 has been affirmed up to the Apex Court. The Tribunal therefore cannot be said to have committed any error in following the said judgment which has been affirmed by the Apex Court.
Nonetheless the issue involved does call for an interference to the extent that the impugned order of the Tribunal shall stand confined only to respondent No. 1 and shall not be treated as a precedence keeping in view the Full Bench judgment of the Tribunal dated 30.10.2000. The petitioners shall therefore be not bound to implement the impugned judgment in the event the same is cited as a precedence at any other employee. Respondent No. 1 is stated to have retired from his services. He will be entitled to such benefits as may be admissible to him in keeping in view the observations made hereinabove.
With the aforesaid observations the writ petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 22.9.2017
BKM/-
