Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 11 November, 2024
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:176767-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16991 of 2024
Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar
Respondent :- Union of India and 3 others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manta Ram Gupta, Shubham Gupta
Counsel for Respondent :- S.P. Singh, A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Impugned in the present proceedings at the instance of Ramesh Kumar son of Late Raghunandan (in short 'writ petitioner') is an order dated 10.11.2023 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (in short 'Tribunal') in OA No. 611 of 2018 whereby the original application preferred by the writ petitioner for a direction commanding the respondents herein to appoint the writ petitioner with effect from 18.11.1996 was rejected.
2. The case of the writ petitioner before the Tribunal was that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category who was offered engagement as a casual labour between 05.04.1978 and 27.05.1986 for a period of 145 days in the railways. According to the writ petitioner, his services stood disengaged on 16.06.1986. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that he successfully cleared class VIII in the year 1989-90. As per the writ petitioner, in terms of the Railway Board Circular dated 03.09.1996, he preferred an application before the respondent-railways for according appointment on the class IV post. Since the said request was not acceded to, thus, the writ petitioner took recourse to the proceedings under RTI Act, 2005 on 20.02.2017 whereupon on 01.03.2017, the Public Information Officer of the railways furnished information apprising the writ petitioner that with respect to absorbing/regularizing the class IV employees proceedings were drawn for screening, which took place on 15.12.2003 to 31.12.2003 in which 234 employees who had cleared class VIII examination and who had completed 122 days of working were accorded absorption. However, so far as the writ petitioner is concerned since he had not cleared class VIII and he was overage, thus, his case was not considered. Thereafter, on 12.04.2017 again the writ petitioner preferred an application before the respondents which came to be replied on 25.04.2017 apprising the writ petitioner that in terms of the Railway Board Circular dated 03.09.1996 all the eligible incumbents were considered for regularization/absorption as of on 30.04.1996 and nobody remains to be regularized/absorbed. The writ petitioner thereafter, preferred OA No. 611 of 2018 before the Tribunal along with a delay condonation application seeking condonation of delay in filing the original application seeking following reliefs:-
"8) Relief
1) To issue order or direction commanding to the respondents to appoint the applicant with effect from 18.11.1996.
3. The delay condonation application came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 30.11.2022 wherein the following orders were passed.-
"Matter taken up.
Shri M.R. Gupta learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Saurabh, learned counsel for the respondents are present.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that for the first time information was given by the department in the year 2017 on the basis of RTI Act. Thereafter, the present OA has been filed. Although the applicant has sought payment w.e.f. 18.11.1996, but it is a recurring cause of action. Therefore, delay be allowed and the OA be deemed to be filed within the period of limitation.
Referring to paragraphs Nos. 9 to 11 and 17 to the objection filed against the aforesaid MA, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the OA has been filed after the gap of 19 years as the applicant was sleeping. Therefore, the delay condonation application cannot be allowed.
I have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties including the facts disclosed in the delay condonation application, CA and RA.
Although the OA has been filed in the year 2018. Information under RTI Act was obtained in the year 2017, but considering the nature of the prayer made in the OA and also to decide the matter on merit, I am of the opinion that the delay in filing the OA is liable to be condoned. Accordingly, the MA No. 1275/2018 is allowed. OA is deemed to be filed within the limitation period. Office has already allotted regular OA number to this OA.
OA is admitted.
Respondents may file their CA within 6 weeks. RA, if any, may be filed within 2 weeks thereafter.
List this case for completion of pleadings before Registrar on 31.01.2023."
4. The original application was contested by the respondent-railways while filing a response to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. The Original Application No. 611 of 2018 came up for consideration before the Tribunal on 07.11.2023 whereupon after hearing the parties the judgment was reserved and the same came to be delivered on 10.11.2023 dismissing the original application while negating the claim of the writ petitioner.
5. Questioning the order dated 10.11.2023 passed in OA No. 611 of 2018, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. Sri Manta Ram Gupta, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the judgment and the order of the Tribunal cannot be sustained for a single moment inasmuch as the Tribunal has misconstrued the entire controversy and has adopted an incorrect approach. Elaborating the said submission, it has been submitted that the writ petitioner was entitled to be accorded appointment on the class IV post since there was nothing adverse against him and further he had worked for more than 145 days on casual basis and in view of the Railway Board Circular dated 03.09.1996, the writ petitioner was entitled to be regularized/absorbed on the class IV post. Submission is that none of the representations/request letter preferred by the writ petitioner came to be disposed of at the appropriate time which compelled the writ petitioner to take recourse to the proceedings under RTI Act whereupon on 01.03.2017 for the very first time the writ petitioner was informed that as per the terms and conditions for absorption/regularization as of on 01.04.1999 an incumbent in order to be considered for regularization/absorption was to be not above 45 years of age and cleared class VIII examination. Contention is that though the respondents as per their own saying conducted screening for regularization/absorption from 15.12.2003 to 31.12.2003 and regularized 234 incumbents who had to their credit 122 days of engagement but the case of the writ petitioner was not considered and he was not called for screening on an incorrect assumption that the writ petitioner had not cleared class VIII and he was overage.
7. Argument is that the writ petitioner has to his credit 145 days of working with the railways and he had passed Junior High School (class VIII) in the year 1990 much before the cut of date, 01.04.1999 and he was just 40 years on the said date below maximum 45 years. In a nutshell, the submission is that the entire basis of negating the claim of the writ petitioner is erroneous and, thus, the order impugned in the present proceedings be set aside and the writ petition be allowed in toto.
8. Countering the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri Pranjal Mehrotra who appears for the respondent-railways has submitted that the order of the Tribunal needs no interference in the present proceedings in view of the fact that the Tribunal has marshalled the facts and law on the subject and has proceeded to pass an order which cannot be faulted in any manner whatsoever. It is submitted that the relief sought in the original application the writ petitioner is for claiming appointment with effect from 18.11.1996 and as per own saying of the writ petitioner, he had approached the Tribunal while filing original application in the year 2018, thus, merely because the delay condonation application stood allowed by the Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2022 would not create a right in favour of the writ petitioner to claim appointment from 18.11.1996 particularly when, there is a difference between the condonation of delay in filing original application and granting of relief. He submits that there happens to be orders dated 01.03.2017 and 25.04.2017 of the railways negating the claim of the writ petitioner for absorption/regularization and once the said orders were within the knowledge of the writ petitioner and they were annexed in the original application preferred by the writ petitioner then, in absence of challenging the same, the writ petitioner would not be entitled to any relief. Additionally, it is being argued that once as per own saying of the writ petitioner, he is out of employment since 18.11.1996 then after several decades the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is, thus, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
10. Facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner had worked on casual basis for a period of 145 days. The bone of contention between the parties is as to in which establishment of the respondent-Railways the writ petitioner had worked for the said period on casual basis. According to the writ petitioner he was engaged for a period of 145 days with the railways, however, as per the stand of the railways the engagement of the writ petitioner for the said period was in the office of the Inspector of Works/Flood Control, North East Railway, Gorakhpur (Open Line) which is not related to construction organization of the railways. The relief sought in the original application is for according appointment in the class IV post with effect from 18.11.1996 meaning thereby that the writ petitioner is out of employment since 18.11.1996. Apparently, on the basis of an application preferred by the writ petitioner under Right to Information Act on 30.02.2017 the Public Information Officer of the Railways furnished information on 01.03.2017 whereby it was recited that the screening of the eligible casual employees took place from 15.12.2003 to 31.12.2003 wherein the cut of date was 01.04.1999 according to which a candidate in order to be considered for absorption/regularization was to possess Junior High School qualification (class VIII) coupled with minimum 122 working days and the age limit was 45 years. As per the information provided to the writ petitioner under RTI on 01.03.2017 since the writ petitioner had not cleared class VIII examination and he was overage, thus, he was not considered. Apart from the same, there happens to be another communication dated 25.04.2017 addressed to the writ petitioner by the railways that in terms of the Railway Board Circular dated 03.09.1996 as on 30.04.1996 all the incumbents were regularized/absorbed and there was no vacancy left to accommodate the writ petitioner. Interestingly, both the communications which were within the knowledge of the writ petitioner had not been questioned by the writ petitioner. In absence of challenge being raised to the said communications containing good, bad and indifferent reasons, this Court is not required to delve into the said issue.
11. Nonetheless, we find that the writ petitioner is seeking to raise a belated and a stale claim that too of the year 1996 in the year 2018 which is not permissible under law. As regards the contention of writ petitioner that once the delay in filing original application stood condoned then it was not open for the Tribunal to have denuded the writ petitioner for the relief as sought in original application is concerned, the same is neither here nor there for simple reason that mere condonation of delay in filing original application would not be construed to be a sufficient ground for grant of relief as the same is dependent upon various factors which is inclusive of reopening of issue relatable to dead and a stale claim which even otherwise would come in the way of the writ petitioner.
12. Viewing the case from the four corners of law, we are of the firm opinion that the writ petitioner has miserably failed to show any manifest illegality committed by the Tribunal so as to warrant interference in the present proceedings.
13. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2024
Rajesh
(Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)
