Ram Avtar & Ors. vs Uoi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 2635 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                        W.P. (C.) No.5812/2008

%                     Date of Decision: 18.05.2010

Ram Avtar & Ors.                                      .... Petitioners
                     Through Mr.D.K. Garg and Mr. Vijay Pratap
                             Singh, Advocates

                                Versus

UOI & Ors.                                         .... Respondents
                     Through Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be              YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in            NO
      the Digest?


ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 8th July, 2008

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA

1358/2008 titled as Sh. Ram Avtar & ors. Vs. Union of India through

Ministry of Railways & ors. dismissing their Original Application

challenging the circular dated 1st April, 2008 and seeking direction to

the respondent to consider the applicants first for appointment to the

regular posts whose names appeared in the live casual labour register

before considering the regularization of other categories of employees.

The plea of the petitioners was that they had been working as casual

labour in C&W Safaiwala and had completed 120 days in Northern

Railways.

A writ petition No. 252/1994 was filed before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court which was disposed of with the direction to the

respondents to appoint a high ranking officer for scrutinizing the claims

of the petitioners and other similarly placed persons.

Pursuant to the directions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

cases of the petitioners were scrutinized and it was held that they were

not entitled for regularization under the scheme framed as they had

worked for less than days contemplated under the scheme. However,

their names were put in the list of casual labours. Later on, all the

petitioners were re-engaged as a C&W Safaiwalas and again their

services were dispensed with by order dated 1st August, 1997 after

giving them show cause notices dated 7th July, 1997.

The petitioners had challenged dispensing of their services by

filing an Original Application being OA 240/2003 which was dismissed

by order dated 17th March, 2003. The Tribunal had held that the

petitioner could not claim any benefit from the order of the Supreme

Court. The order dated 17th March, 2003 in OA 240/2003 was not

challenged by the petitioners and had become final.

The respondents thereafter, issued a circular dated 1st April, 2008

deciding to absorb licensed porters as a gangman but those casual

labours whose name had been entered in live casual register were not to

be absorbed under the said circular which was challenged by the

petitioners by filing OA 1358/2008 before the Tribunal. While

dismissing the petition, the Tribunal noted that circular dated 1st April,

2008 was issued pursuant to announcement made by the Railway

Minister as a one time measure to appoint licensed porters as a

gangman.

The Tribunal also noted that in Inder Pal Yadav (supra), pursuant

to directions of the Supreme court in Writ Petition No. 254/1994, the

cases of the petitioners were scrutinized and since, it was found that

the petitioners had worked for less than 120 days and it was held that

one time measure to absorb the licensed porters as a gangman by

Circular dated 1st April, 2008 could not be applied to the petitioners

and that the petitioners have no right to challenge the policy decision of

the Railways with regard to the absorption of other categories of

workers. The Tribunal has also held that the petitioner could not claim

preference over other categories. Since, the absorption and

regularization of the petitioners was declined in OA 240/2003 by order

dated 17th March, 2003, which was not challenged by the petitioner, it

has been held that they are not entitled for regularization. Reliance was

also placed on the State of Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, (2006) 4 SCC 197,

holding that it is prerogative of Government to announce the schemes

and the scheme for taking care of licensed porter's cannot be extended

in case of the petitioners whose relief for regularization has already

been declined. Reliance was also placed on federation of Railway

Officers Association Vs. Union of India, 2003(4) SCC 289, holding that

policy decision or action of Government unless it is inconsistent with

Constitution and the laws or is arbitrary or is irrational, is not subject

to judicial review.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has again contended before

this Court, while challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 8th July,

2008, that since the petitioners were put in the category of live casual

labour, therefore, they are also liable to be considered pursuant to the

circular dated 1st April, 2008. This, however, has not been denied by

the learned counsel and cannot be denied by him that pursuant to the

order passed in Inder pal Yadav (Supra), the petitioners were considered

and were found not eligible for regularization. The challenge by the

petitioners to dispensing with their services was not upheld in OA

240/2003 which was dismissed by order dated 17th March, 2003 which

had not been challenged by the petitioners.

The respondents are entitled to have different schemes for

different categories of workers and the Circular dated 1st April, 2008 is

made categorically for the licensed porters as a one time scheme to

appoint them as a gangman. Such a policy decision of the respondents

as one time measure for licensed porters cannot be extended to the

petitioners who had been in live casual labour register and whose

services had been dispensed with nor the action of the respondents to

have one time measure/scheme for licensed porters can be faulted.

The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show that the

circular dated 1st April, 2008 is contrary or inconsistent with any rules

or decision of the Supreme Court or such a scheme suffers from any

such perversity or illegality, which will require interference by the Court

in case it is not applied to the petitioners.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, the counsel for the

petitioners has failed to make out any such illegality or perversity in the

order of the Tribunal, which will necessitate any interference by this

Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

The writ petition is therefore, without any merit and it is therefore

dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

May 18, 2010                                    MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
'rs'