Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. vs Ram Swaroop
2006 Latest Caselaw 514 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. The petitioner is the Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi and the present writ petition challenges the order dated 22nd April, 2005 passed in OA 1298 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi(in short `the CAT') by which only a limited relief has been granted to the respondent/employee and the petitioner/UOI has been granted three months' time to indicate the name of the respondent in the Live Casual Labour Register(LCLR) and to consider him fit for re-engagement from the receipt of the CAT's order/judgment dated 22nd August, 2005.

3. The respondent has been agitating his rights since 1992 and filed an OA 211 of 1992 which was eventually disposed of by the CAT on 6th November, 1997 where the admitted position was recorded that the respondent/employee was engaged as a Casual Labour for 226 days in three different spells and the last spell was up to 24th May, 1982. The disposal of respondent's OA 211/1992 is in the following terms:-

4. It is an admitted position that the applicant was engaged as a casual labourer for 226 days in three different spells and the last spell was up to 24.5.1982. It is, therefore, obvious that the applicant's services were disengaged after 1.1.1981 and accordingly, in terms of the Railway Board circular dated 28.8.1987, his name could not have been struck off of the live casual labour register but should have been continued on the said register. In the circumstances, respondents cannot at this stage take the plea of limitation. No doubt, the applicant could have also pursued the matter but there was no reason for him to presume that his name would not be figuring in the live casual labour register in terms of the Railway Board instructions (supra). The respondents have stated that it is the duty of the applicant to ensure that his name is kept on the live casual labour register. This does not appear to be a sound reasoning and this aspect of the matter has already been dealt with in the judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Tribunal at Allahabad O.A. 1220 of 1998 - Mithai Lal v. Union of India and Ors. It was held that the onus of maintaining the live casual labour register is upon the respondents and as per paras and 9 of the Railway Board Circular (Supra), it is seen that the Railway Board has decided that the names of each casual labourer discharged any time after 1.1.1981 should be continued to be borne out in live casual labour register indefinitely and even if it had been deleted due to earlier instructions, it should be restored in the live casual labour register.

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this O.A. is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the applicant's case and include his name in the live casual labour register if he is eligible for such inclusion in terms of the Railway Board Circular dated 28.8.1987 and the applicant should be considered for reengagement as casual labourer as and when need arises in accordance with the seniority in that register and the relevant rules. In order that the respondents take appropriate action in the matter, the applicant should also make a representation to the respondents along with the full particulars of his service with proof within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of such a representation, the respondents shall take necessary action in accordance with law within a period of 3 months under intimation to the applicant.

4. This order dated 6th November, 1997 thus settled the issue that the respondent was clearly covered by the Railway Board's Circular dated 28th August, 1987 as this order dated 6th November, 1997 was not carried in appeal by any of the parties. In this view of the matter, it was not open to the petitioner to redetermine the question whether the respondent was eligible to avail of the benefits of the Railway Board's Circular dated 28th August, 1987 as this issue stood determined by the CAT's order of 6th November, 1997 which had become final.

5. In this view of the matter, we see no reason to interfere with the CAT's order dated 22nd August, 2005 granting benefits of the Railway Board' Circular dated 28th August 1987. In any event only relief granted to the respondent is that he had been kept on the LCLR and this order was passed on 22nd August, 2005. The petitioner through counsel has challenged the CAT's order dated 22nd August, 2005 only on 21st February, 2006. This is another ground why the order dated 22nd August, 2005 does not warrant any interference. Ms. Meenu Mainee, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that this writ petition has been initiated only after the filing of the contempt petition by the respondent before the CAT on 4th January, 2006 in which notice to the petitioner has been issued.

6. Consequently the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs and stands disposed of accordingly.